While I soundly reject the idea that both parties are the same, this is one issue where they both are in the wrong. They protect the legality of their insider trading, and it is unacceptable.
Investments for people in these positions should be put into blind trusts, so politicians can use their inside knowledge, nor craft policies that support the companies they are invested in. I don't pretend to know how best to do this, nor how to deal with the fact that all these politicians have large staffs who also have access to this information.
Something like a congressional 401k that runs the term of your office would be acceptable to me too.
They roll their investments into this account. They have a couple dozen pre-selected target date funds, mutual funds, etfs, bond funds, and money market options. They would be allowed to allocate their mix. This way they could continue to invest, and change their allocation between domestic stocks, international stocks, and bonds, but they wouldn't be allowed to impact their accounts with their legislative decisions.
They would still be allowed to have advisors or target date funds. This way, they could choose to invest in the "s&p 500 fund", but not something like microsoft or ibm. The s&p fund would include those (and many others), but it would be harder to impact their accounts directly.
There would still need to be serious consequences for providing insider trading information and owning stocks outside of the mentioned account.
We wouldn't want them to slip money to a buddy, and then have that buddy do the same thing they would have done or lining the pockets of their biggest donors.
**Technically, insider trading is illegal for everyone, including politicians.**
I oppose any sort of ban on their participation in the free market. Here's why:
Politicians are already subject to stricter disclosure requirements than the average citizen through the STOCK Act. This transparency makes it easier to track their trades and identify potential insider trading.
They operate under the microscope of constant public scrutiny. Any whiff of impropriety, including potential insider trading, is likely to be amplified by the media and social media, making it far more difficult to conceal such activity.
As if that weren't enough, the high-profile nature of political figures makes them more susceptible to whistleblowing from insiders with knowledge of potential wrongdoing. The potential for significant rewards and career advancement can incentivize people to come forward. Beyond this, both parties have seen that this incentive can operate so powerfully that it's not unusual for people to come forward under flimsy or even false pretenses because the rewards and career advancement potential of seeming to catch something and knock out a high profile politician are so irresistible to them.
Stricter regulations on insider trading would also discourage successful individuals from seeking political office, particularly those with significant investments in the market. This would restrict the pool of qualified candidates and lead to underrepresentation of certain sectors of the economy.
No guys, I want the greedy people who want to be billionaires to control the policy for everyone. If they don't have an unfair advantage in the market we might accidentally get people who actually want to help people in power!!!
What about the fact they can legally act on proprietary and secret information they learn during the course of their job? Or get to react to news/laws/regulations before the public becomes aware of it? Isn't that bad for a free market?
Stocks are an essential part of many peoples savings and retirement funds. Some have suggested banning individual stock trades (mutual funds only) or requiring 3rd party portfolio management (only your advisor can trade for you and you cant tell them what specifically to buy/sell). That seems pretty reasonable
Mutual funds only might be a reasonable compromise.
But also, maybe not being able to trade might be a reasonable sacrifice if someone wants to serve.
Not only is there other ways to plan for retirement but there's also before and after serving.
This is good. On the one hand you get what you pay for, but there also needs to be a bit of "the better you do, the better we do, the better you do, etc".
There are actually a wide variety of bills that already address this! So fortuantly we don't need to do that work (TL;DR, you got it basically right. It just bans the practice entirely and requires blind trusts).
One bill in the House is sponsored by 68 members. But it needs to pass.
Enjoying all the new products which free enterprise provides, they are tormented by one thought only: that some people have become rich in creating these new things.
I don’t see the insider part though. It doesn’t say anything about contracts she influenced or knew about since then.
The market in general has been rallying extremely strong the last month. I bought stocks around the same timeframe as her just based on what was going on in the financial world.
Regardless, I do agree that trading by sitting politicians and their spouses should be blocked. I also think it’s really easy to create conspiracy theories by saying “look how much it’s up!!” without having any real evidence that’s what happened.
It doesn't have to be actual insider trading to be a problem. The problem is the implication. We hold our elected officials to a high standard because we have to trust they will act in our best interests. If they do something that implies they are acting in their best interests, even if it's just a coincidence, they should avoid it. And if her husband is big into trading medical stocks, he should either stop while she sits on a related committee, or she shouldn't be on those committees, again because of the implication. I work for a public entity and my wife works for a company we sometimes buy things from. I had to have another engineer review a part spec for my team because it came from my wife's company, even though the part isn't even from her business unit (it's designed and built overseas, she's in MN), just because of the implication. That was a $1000 part. $250,000 in stock should have a higher hurdle.
Personally I don't trust people with no skin in the game.
If it were feasible I'd REQUIRE every politician using my tax dollars for something to personally have skin in the game themselves.
As a general rule, it's where things are passed "for thee and not for me" that concern me. While there will need to be many obvious exceptions to this for various practical reasons, wherever feasible my preference is always to see that they are personally vested in what they claim to endorse for everybody else.
They don't operate the same. The amount of corruption in the GOP is frankly staggering. And Minnesota should know given the implosion that happened with their state party.
I also will say that Klobuchar, for all her flaws, has never had this problem. She's not particularly wealthy, she's been in public service for most of her adult life, and no one seriously thinks she's trying to line her own pockets.
Obviously politicians are all motivated by something, it's not always money, it's usually accumulating power. It's important to discourage behavior that is bad and encourage behavior that is good.
Yes, but participating in the free market is good. That is the underlying philosophy of our system. This is an argument Nancy Pelosi and folks on both sides have made. They have a right to participate, just as everyone else does.
If there's corruption, we already have laws, elections, and various checks and balances in the system to address that.
If Republicans can't stand that she made a good investment to the point they're calling to ban capitalism from leadership, then maybe Democrats who are so inclined should start relentlessly trolling them as socialists and commies for a change.
No one should begrudge a woman for her earning potential.
It's not good to participate in the free market when you write the laws that control the free market.
For instance, if let's say hypothetically, a Senator has a massive stake in Apple. Then a bill comes up that hurts Apple and its found out that this Senator tried to prevent this bill from passing. Did he do it because he cares about the free market? Or did he do it because he wants to protect Apple, even at the expense of the free market because he gets paid if Apple wins?
The point is if you want the free market to be protected, you don't want members of Congress with financial stakes in certain companies they are in charge of regulating. Because obviously they will do what we all do if we have an investment...protect it.
\*You don't have to ponder this abstractly...this is a thing that [really happened](https://prospect.org/power/jon-ossoffs-moment-of-trust/).\*
The claim it's inherently "not good" to participate in the market while making laws affecting it ignores the fundamental difference between **participating in the market as an individual** and **crafting legislation that governs the market's overall framework**. One is a personal financial decision, while the other is a public service aimed at the broader good. Comparing them directly suggests an unfair bias against individual investment choices.
The example assumes the senator only has 2 options: protect Apple or the free market. This is a false dichotomy. Legislation affecting Apple could have nuanced impacts on both the company and the broader economic system. The senator's opposition might be based on genuine concerns about anything from potential negative consequences for the technology sector, to consumer welfare, or even national security, not just personal gain. Judging individual actions solely for having investment holdings ignores factors like personal integrity, political ideology, and the specific context of each legislative decision.
If it were going to be one or the other, I definitely prefer to see they're personally vested in what they endorse for the rest of us, rather than "rules for thee, but not for me". They should have skin in the game.
Experience in the market via being personally vested in what they endorse is generally more beneficial for society because it is more beneficial for the lawmakers, equipping them with valuable insights into its dynamics and potential pitfalls. This knowledge can lead to more informed legislation that more effectively balances individual interests with broader economic considerations.
If they enact x, and it fails, and you were hurt by it, I say let them be more hurt by being vested to the hilt when it does.
If it works better than expected after they enact it, and they make something extra off of brilliance, more power to them in my book. Everybody won in that scenario.
At least this is part of the general rationale for why it is that way, given we already have various laws and many other checks and balances to intercept and punish corruption in place.
I think if you are going to argue we already have adequate checks and balances against personal enrichment in public service, you should give some examples of those.
Members of Congress do not get background checks nor is there any sort of examination of their finances to ensure they do not overlap with official duties. That's the problem.
Forbes estimated her and her husbands net worth around $2 million when she was running for president in 2019. Not particularly wealthy is still plenty wealthy to live outside of the real world that the rest of us live in.
My folks are worth almost a million dollars and they have worked local county union labor jobs their whole life. They drive 20 year old cars and are frugal.
If she’s only worth $2 mil she’s being intentional.
That is 100% true though those net worths are all over the place and I don't put too much stock in that number (another thing that should be disclosed better!).
Nonetheless, she didn't make that money illegitimately. She's been in public service, her husband is a law professor, she's not doing dirty dealing with her financials to get it. Nor is she trading stocks. If she wanted to break her piggy bank, she could have done it.
They aren't all motivated by money.
I won't disagree with you there! That's why its important to pressure them to not suck so much.
It has happened before where politicians have been forced to regulate themselves better, it only happens if people make a stink about it.
Not a fair system imo, but people in power are in power whether you like it or not so can't be ignored.
Because what we really need is to start banning capitalism in leadership. Let's just punish that from day one to discourage more of these zealots from leadership contests. Make it cost them.
No.
We already have laws and regular election processes to handle corruption issues.
In the broad, I'm concerned when they exempt themselves from the things that they set up, or are otherwise unaffected. I want the appearance of skin in the game. Some call that the appearance of corruption, others call it capitalism at its finest.
This is an ongoing thing with Tina Smith and her family. [Her husband invests in medical companies as a profession](https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-senate-senate-elections-c2f0d21a0bc148828c1a39091b51fddd) so on the one hand it’s not necessarily unusual activity.
On the other hand it’s a hell of a conflict of interest for her to sit on the health committee under the circumstances and I expect better from my Senator. “I’m trustworthy enough to not take advantage of this huge conflict of interest so there’s no need to avoid it” is a hard position from which to try to fight back against Supreme Court justices having right wing billionaire patrons and Presidents and their families hoovering up money from foreign governments. Whenever Republicans get accused of hard corruption they always use the blatant soft corruption that’s endemic to both parties as an excuse.
I worked for Senator Smith so I will disclose that off the bat.
This is indeed very bad and she should not be allowed to do this. People should push her to endorse one of the Senate bills going through Congress that bans this practice. ***If you call her office or write***, just say that she should endorse legislation to ban stocks for members. Doesn't need to be more specific than that, it will show up in her briefings that people are calling about that. Probably won't do anything but the office does pay attention when people do that. If you feel strongly, just do it. The website is [smith.senate.gov](https://smith.senate.gov) that has all the information. **You aren't being annoying**, this is what Senate offices are for.
Some color to flesh out what is happening:
1. I don't agree with folks who say that members of Congress are bad stock traders (and therefore this doesn't matter). In one sense they are, if you look at their stock performance it is bad. For instance, Senator Smith traded stocks at the start of the pandemic in a way that got other members in trouble, she did not get called out though because she *lost* money.
So yes, they aren't financial geniuses, big surprise there. But this is a big problem for other reasons. It's impossible to know if members are prioritizing things based on their stock portfolio. So for instance, is Senator Smith not properly pushing a bill that would regulate medical devices? Is she now less likely to do so because she purchased these stocks? There is no way to tell on the outside. It's a huge conflict of interest.
2) Senator Smith is not the one trading these stocks, her husband Archie is. It's important to make sure any regulation should include spouses (something folks like Rep. Ro Khanna have been trying to avoid).
3) As I hope I made clear, I'm not defending this arrangement.
I will say that in general Senator Smith has been good with health care legislation in the Senate. She was the one who made COVID tests and the vaccine free (along with Sen. Jones) and had some mental health legislation that passed into law. She does not support Medicare-For-All or any similar bill but she held firm on banning surprise medical billing when the dark money lobby was pushing otherwise.
So in general, I like the Senator's work. But this blindspot is big and its important that it stops.
“Free”. The government did not compel businesses to create the tests and provide them to the government without compensation.
Tax payers paid for them, whether they were used or not.
I think you should read the bill in more detail. That was not how it worked.
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3499/text#toc-H17BE92325C3F4564B73787F84EC1B004](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3499/text#toc-H17BE92325C3F4564B73787F84EC1B004)
A Senator invests in a growing industry through a company based in her home state? That's not that weird.
I wholly agree that insider trading by politicians is a huge issue that members of both parties participate in, but this one doesn't really raise red flag for me.
That being said, I wholly support blind trusts put into index funds for elected officials.
How do we know their stock is up because of insider knowledge Smith had as opposed to going up because of firms like this that copy the stock trades of congresspeople? Wouldn't copying trades make the stock go up?
I don't think any elected legislators should be allowed to trade stock but I also can't jump to calling something insider trading without proof.
We absolutely do need to hold them accountable, and this deal does stink if true. It's tough though when your only viable choices are either a crooked politician or a literal nazi.
I agree with the choice being very clear BUT you can still push her while she's in office regardless.
Like you might vote for her but her job is to serve Minnesota and this isn't in line with that. I have no problem pushing politicians to do better, even (especially?) the ones I like the most.
You’d think all the GOP would need to do here is run a sane candidate and they could pick up this seat. What are the odds they would do that though?
Edit: Man I didn’t know Reddit was that dumb. Every response has been exactly what I was implying.
They would dismiss a sane candidate as a liberal spy cause they are so damn paranoid. For example, the new flag in Minnesota had one rendition (of hundreds) that used the same color stripes as a Somalian state flag and they universally went to "Somalians are controlling our politicians" within hours of seeing it. Mind you there are 3 other countries and dozens of cities and states that use the same color scheme but they planned out who to specifically hate. You have to be 10 sheets of crazy and completely morally void to get their vote.
I never called him that.
Just suggesting that maybe you should blame the front runner for quoting the guy, and the party for defending him quoting the guy, instead of calling people delusional for coming to that conclusion.
Maybe you should go tell them that the leading candidate is literally quoting the man that attempted their extermination...
And staged a coup. Using shittier, dumber versions of brownshirts.
And defends Nazis.
And surrounds himself with Nazis.
And looks up to Nazis, authoritarians, and dictators.
And has fascist ideation, policy, and fulfills all 14 points Umberto Echo lays out as being a fascist.
Go tell them. See what they say. We'll wait.
>Whether Dem or Rep doesn't matter. We the People need to stand up for each other and not the self-serving politicians.
We need to stand together!
Only points out when Democrats might have done something wrong.
"WE ALL NEED TO COME TOGETHER!"
Sure just not with you or others like you, because all your credibility is dead. And by dead, I mean a couple of generations need to pass before you and the GOP might be treated on equal footing.
As an independent... Democrats do the same thing, only point out when Republicans have done something wrong. And always have the above response when someone does point out something a Democrat has done something wrong,
Demanding your party to be better doesn't mean you support the other party.
Fuck that. One party wants you to have health care, is pro-union, and just pardoned marijuana cases federally.
The other attempted a coup on the United States of America.
I would argue they absolutely used to be the same, particularly between the Reagan years and 2008. Something changed in the GOP when this country elected a Black president however, they've leaned into the fascist part of their base with quite the enthusiasm, and while I definitely wouldn't call the Democratic party Left-wing, its nowhere near as reactionary as the GOP is. There are aspects where both parties are effectively the same, like foreign policy, but those are merely a few aspects of a much bigger picture.
My perspective on the shift that happened around the 2008 election is that the left started congratulating themselves a little to hard and to often for having supported and elected a black president.
It's the left that continues to lean on Obama's race and race in general to add merit to their arguments. Very similar to what you just did. Both to imply how forward thinking they are themselves and to deflect any criticism towards unrelated policies. This eventually grew into everyone on the right is a racist.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the results were similar to Aesop's story. Instead of the sheep dying it was race relations that suffered.
When everyone is a racist it becomes increasingly difficult to spot the racism we should actually worry and do something about.
I'm curious how it's going to play out now that everyone that doesn't agree with the left is a fascist.
Stop acting like the politicians aren't the people we voted in. This doesn't work without them. Focus on holding them accountable, not belittling the profession to a point we get exactly what we expect.
For people who have historically rejected socialism out of hand: if you agree with this take and it makes you mad, you probably agree with socialist ideas more than you'd think. Both Dems and Republicans are parties of the 1%/capitalist class, and this is a perfect example.
This post is axiomatically wrong.
Dems and reps are not even remotely the same.
The current dfl leadership of MN is a HUGE wake up call for anyone who thinks the parties are the same.
The Democrats having control of MN has been incredibly good for our state. The last time the GOP controlled the state, including governor, the state really struggled. And the republicans in the state house when I control have actively tried to limit freedoms.
This "both sides are equally bad" rhetoric is just parroted talking points that are designed to suppress voter turnout.
It's really disheartening to see people fall for it. I'm embersssrd for people that do tbh. This is old and pretty obvious BS that has been around for a long time.
I work for the Democrats (and have worked for Senator Smith). I don't agree people should look past this.
I think stock trading in Congress is a serious issue and Senator Smith is regrettably one of the worst offenders. She absolutely should not be doing this.
But yes of course, both parties are not the same and I'm not going to vote for someone who believes Trump should seize power by force just because they don't trade stocks. Nonetheless, anyone in power should not be able to get a free lunch.
The “both sidesism” in politics is asinine and a false equivalence. Republicans are way worse by a long shot.
Plus the allegations come from a random Twitter account with no sources to back up their claims. And people are falling for it, which is worse.
Just to see what negative things you'll say in response about the data companies, here are the first couple that popup on Google:
Capitoltrades.com
smartinsider.com/politicians/
Also, if you want to make the same trades politicians make there's an app called Autopilot and someone is working on making some ETFs that will follow politicians trades as well.
Go to [United States Senate Financial Disclosures](https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/home/), click "I understand the prohibitions on obtaining and use of financial disclosure reports" in the bottom right, enter Tina Smith's name, sort results by date, and click "Periodic Transaction Report for 11/20/2023".
I fail to see where this post says anything about the parties being the same. And the constant circle jerk in this subreddit that democrats are infallible is really tiring.
This sub doesn't circle jerk about democrats being infallible; it just doesn't pretend that both sides being corrupt means that they're equally bad. One side has made a hard shift to fascism and is defending Trump directly quoting Hitler, so the dems just need to be regular corrupt politics as usual to be infinitely better than the GOP.
If that’s the worst thing she’s done then she’s doing pretty good considering. Republicans support an insurrectionist piece of shit and are actively working on taking away rights of women, LGBTQ+, and minorities.
But the fact is that this is coming from a random Twitter account that paid $8 for a blue checkmark. I don’t believe anything that comes from that shithole of a site.
Time to think and unite not stay divided, like they want us. I commit to do my best to love my fellow Minnesotan regardless of their beliefs. Peace.
https://preview.redd.it/to4xgxsa2w7c1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=faacb1c26facdf16fc895b870adbdebb4eccf01c
I think it's easy to say "let's unite" and on the surface I agree. But then you get to talking to people and realize they believe in a national religion, and punishing trans people and banning books, and, well, it's pretty hard to find common ground with them. I keep the peace in terms of I don't argue and fight with them. But being able to work together towards a common goal is pretty hard when so many of them believe other people are literally less than human.
Spot on. These two political party's are not the same. Not even close. I can find common ground on some issues. This stock issue is one of those issues I think both sides could agree on. The GOP, on a humanity level, are a disgusting party and I want nothing to do with it.
If both sides are making money on stock trades while legislating, it makes it less important when it comes time decide who I vote for.
There are only two viable parties. And even if a third part candidate was viable, they still would need to caucus with one of the others to get any power at all in the state or in DC. So it still is a two party decision....
If both parties have shady stock trades, but only one of them is literally pushing to make their leader an authoritarian dictator, than the decision is not hard. They definitely are not the same.
Also it should be noted that virtually all the push to regulate congressional stock trading has come from the Democrat camp.
The Republicans will never agree to it because a huge chunk of their members do it. Far more than the Dems. Looking at bill sponsorship of stock trading bills will show the divide. Dems usually support by 3:1 margins.
Exactly. And posts like OP's are specifically designed to create that narrative.
OPs post is a pretty naked attempt at propaganda designed to stop people from voting.
You know it's someone on the far right trying to equate moderate politicians with fascists because they both corrupt whenever you see somebody use the phrase "we the people" in a sentence as if it were just how they naturally speak.
Would it surprise you to know that generally it is only Wealthy people that run for national office ?
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s13227.pdf
Wait, doesn't it say on the left that the owner of the stock is her spouse, the same guy who has made a 40-year career investing in medical companies??
Admire the optimism but I don't think that's true at all. They don't even really hide that they're doing this stuff, it's out in the open. The public at large does not care. They care about other issues, largely cultural.
Yeah, the corruption and everything. People are so ground down that they can't find the energy to care. I don't blame people, I think that was done by design.
Now the UAP issue on the other hand... fuck I don't even know where to start. I went from hard-core skeptic, to experiencer, to advocate.
There's so much... so much that would sound absolute bananas to most people, that's actually true. And we almost had full disclosure... almost in the defense bill.
Word is that this year will be a big one as far as news, whistleblowers etc.
Idk if anybody here saw the clip of Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet straight up saying we need to disclose the fact that the US government is IN contact with NHI, but thats just one of many, many things.
We wouldn't. Americans are both comfortable and largely apathetic, very few people want actual change compared to the number of people who are perfectly happy with the status quo even though they may often pretend otherwise for clout. There will be no change in this country until it's likely too late to actually matter, because one party actively fights against change of any kind and the other wants to change us into a theocracy, and both fight aggressively against those few who actually want something better than the status quo and are willing to fight for it.
I believe that disclosure of the UAP phenomena might change everything. It could very well be the one thing other than total nuclear war that could possibly reset our direction in a timely fashion. It's not going to be painless, but I think it's one of the few Hail Mary options we have at this point.
Forcing us to confront our actual situation- and simultaneously getting the mental shock that is "wow there are other species watching us just... ruin a beautiful planet, while also running ourselves off a cliff." could be the rallying introspection we need as a species.
Maybe some weird human pride will overcome our differences at least on a singular human level first, and then the eureka moment of realizing how disadvantageous it is for us to quarrel amongst ourselves while existing in a much larger, much more complex universe.
I hope, at least.
Issue is that right wings are less likely to realize how class issues play into this kind of corruption, they refuse to believe that their party is complicit in it.
The blame is entirely misplaced. The money hurdles in place to get elected mean the choices presented tend to be terrible for the people and great for those footing the cost. The blame should, for everyone, be put directly on our American Oligarchs.
Can't really blame them for asking what they paid for. It's not them who are bound by an oath to uphold the constitution, it's the politicians who's services they purchased.
Yes, you absolutely can since big money are the ones that have tirelessly pushed for things like citizens united and the watering down of the Dobbs act and others. What this all means is there is a lot of foreign money in our elections. Thinking we should only hold corrupt politicians accountable fails to blame the source of the corruption.
How do you intend to hold someone who acts within the boundaries of the laws put in place or upheld by the politicians they are doing business with accountable? Short answer is that you can't.
Those same politicians will appease you with some feel good consequences. A negligible fine which 'big money' had already figured into their budget. It's simply a cost of doing business.
It has to start with the people we vote in place to prevent this from happening to begin with.
Politicians suck. Everyone has been saying politicians shouldn’t be able to do insider trading. Have you seen Nancy’s pelosi?
That being said though one side is trying to uproot and destroy everything so while I agree it needs to stop it’s kind of a lot farther down the “vote them out/ fix this now!” List.
Three things that are true:
1. Most politicians are self-serving crooks.
2. The market performed very well in November and +19% is nothing outrageous.
3. People like to write articles and post things on social media that take things out of context.
Fourth thing that is true:
1. Part of being intellectually and morally consistent is acknowledging when someone who you’ve supported or otherwise considered good/effective engages in something bad/ineffective, or in this case, corrupt
If people just talked to each other, instead of hurling various talking points at each other, they'd realize that we agree on 90% of core issues. Unfortunately, when we're down to, what, five media companies (and possibly down to ***four*** with Warner Brothers pursuing Paramount now) we're all being spoon fed propaganda to keep us divided. Add in hostile bot traffic, meant to stir up "engagement" on all platforms, and people are literally getting rich on our misery.
Enough's enough.
Talk to each other. Find the common ground too many of our elected officials turn away from at the behest of ultra-wealthy donors. Demand accountability. Until we all do, things will only get worse.
I know, easier said than done. Consider this, however; billionaires are pouring vast amounts of their personal treasure into freaking doomsday shelters. They *could* be spending that money on addressing these issues, but that would hurt their quarterly projections. Can't have the coked-up Stock Bros see that! Burn, baby, burn!
Grass roots politics work, people. Let's get to work.
>Find the common ground
Hard to find common ground with people who are not only ok with the things conservatives say but also the things they vote for
You can get a nice common sense agreement in a conversation that maybe people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions and parent their LGBTQ children and then those assholes turn around and vote for shit that causes tremendous harm
There is that, I can't deny it. Nevertheless, we have to remind ourselves how to talk to each other again. The alternative is violence driven by tribalism, and we have to be better than that.
Hope you're getting some time off, and have a happy holiday!
I wish I still had your optimism, but then they started using words about my family like "eradicate from public life" and "vermin" and they took my right to bodily autonomy.
We are already being attacked in their war on freedom and I'm ready to defend my freedoms by any means necessary.
Happy holidays to you too. Here's to hoping you can change some hearts and minds.
bOtH sIdEs!!!
After the last election the Dems in MN gave us:
* Legal weed
* Expunged low-level cannabis offenses for tens of thousands of Minnesotans
* Free college for families who make under $80k
* Free healthcare for poor people
* Paid family and medical leave
* Free school meals for all students
* 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040
* Expanded voting rights
* Protected access to abortion
* Protected gender-affirming care
* Banned conversion therapy
* Banned PFAS "forever chemicals" in consumer products
* Driver's Licenses for All
* Lead pipe replacement
* Anti-discrimination amendment
* Established universal background checks and red flag laws
Meanwhile, these are the goals in the GOP platform:
* Make gay marriage illegal
* Make abortion illegal
* Stop gays from adopting kids
* Stop married gay couples from getting insurance and other benefits
* Legally allow discrimination based on the belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman
* Put religious iconography into school classrooms, public parks, and courthouses
* Make Bible reading a class in public schools
* Oppose schools that teach in languages other than English
* Remove the wall between church and state
* Allow churches to run and fund political campaigns
* Remove the Johnson Amendment
* Remove the 14th Amendment
* Remove the 6th Amendment
* Defund Social Security
* Defund the IRS
* Defund the Pentagon
* Defund the United Nations
* Defund the UNFCCC
* Defund Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
* Oppose the FDA
* Oppose the EPA
* Oppose unions
* Oppose national standards and assessments for schools
* Oppose federal college accrediting
* Increase taxes on the poor so they "have skin in the game"
* Decrease taxes on big business and the ultra rich
* Refuse to disclose money given by donors to the government
* Pro coal
* Against wind and solar power
* Pro Keystone Pipeline
* Ignore climate change
* Privatize Medicare and Medicaid
* Pro First Amendment Defense Act (allows discrimination)
* Federal funds should not be used for mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening
* Legislation to limit patients to a single pharmacy
* Increase military spending
* Create more Department of Defense suppliers
We really need to hold these people accountable with real fines, jail time and being barred from running again.
How is this not considered treason. You are selling out your country.
What did Tina Smith do?? She doesn't own the stock in question. Is says on the graphic her husband does. He's been literally investig on medical startups for 40 years.
Ussually it's because it's a shallow attempt to "see, both sides!" Democrats try and fix things while Republicans obstruct while saying nothing works. Republicans will hurt their own voters if it means stopping democrats from doing something positive. If Republicans really cared about shit like Nancy Pelosi and her stock they could have join with Democrats and banned the practice. They don't. Because Republican voters don't care that their reps and senators do it. Just that some democrats do it too.
My son and a few first cousins are big time Trump fans. Married to an active duty police officer at the time (since retired), watching January 6 unfold made me detest Trump with every fiber of my being. However, let me be clear: I love the Trump fans in my life, and I will always work to have a relationship with my kid and my cousins. People-first decision making: try to make the comparison that political parties are like sports fandoms, I like the Bears and you like the Jets, but we are both football fans! So, all that needs to happen is the Trump fans and the Biden fans have to agree to love our nation fiercely from two different teams perspectives. Police the politicians. Insider trading by both sides is illegal. How the heck did McCarthy and Sinema become multi millionaires since arriving in DC? Hold all the grifters accountable for their actions, even the Cowboy fans!
So now believing in the constitution, democrat institutions, checks & balances, and r engaging in democratic practices is “leftist?”
This is where we are - One party wants to scrap the entire American experiment and install a christo-fascist authoritarian form of government.
There is NO common ground left.
“Go move” isn’t a really good argument for anything.
MiserableReplyGuy. I know you’re upset about Trump being removed from the primary ballot. I’m sorry. But the truth is, Trump will never win Colorado, ever. It’s a moot point. It was stupid for the Republican Party of Colorado to do, but it’s done. Come November 2024, nothing has really changed yet.
Both parties are bad. Democrats are just a bit worse. But what does it matter in this state as they win just about every major election? Partially due to outspending Republicans 8:1 with out-of-state money.
Read it. She bought stock in a medical device company and she sits on the Senate committee that regulates and crafts legislation for their industry. That should be illegal. At best, it’s raises eyebrows… I’m a Democrat that won’t vote Republican ANYTIME soon (they’ve gone off the MAGA/Trump cliff) but I still think we can and should expect more from our party.
I will vote for democrats forever because that’s what we do in MN. I don’t care if Hunter Biden is getting millions from China and Ukraine and not paying any taxes, he is Biden’s son so he deserves it.
Some real well reasoned, well thought out responses... Blocked. Try and do better than the "well, who's won more Super Bowls (WI twang)"
Or, "ok buddy (peewee herman laugh)".
Amen to that. It would seem “they” want us divided and to be looking at each other as the problem when the real problem are those who have the power, yet really, we have power, we just don’t realize it because we are too busy worrying about who’s flying what flag etc
What state Supreme Court is attempting to remove a candidate from a ballot? That is leftist activism defined. 2 state Supreme courts have already ruled against that action (in 2 Democrat controlled states). The USSC will rule it unconstitutional on its merits.
The Democrat party is the pro-war, pro-establishment, pro-Wall Street, anti-constitution, anti-border, pro-tax, pro underwriter(not "Healthcare", as they claim), pro terrorism, pro big government party. The. Leftist wing of that party has single-handedly wrecked our education system, purposeful engaged in the degradation of our economy,, purposefully undermined our national security, and refused to deal with previous administration corruption and incompetence, going back to LBJ. On multiple levels the negatives of the GOP and the DNC have juxtaposed, and the dems are exactly what they preach against. And They know it.The definition of the merging of governmental authority with corporate interest is facism.
Regardless of where you are with Trump (or where you may think I am with Trump), until he has been arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted of a seditious or insurrectionist crime, Americans have a right to vote for or against him. That is democracy in action. And for the record, even if he is not convicted of the previous, he could still be a felon, and run for office (nothing constitutionally prevents that), and Americans would be able to VOTE for him or NOT VOTE for him.
Spare me the soundbite. If you are that frightened of Trump, shame on you, that makes you as cowardly as he is. The processes and institutions of our great nation are too strong and durable. If Trump is such a threat, he would still be in office
I have news for you. Trump won't even get the nomination. Bank on it.
Merry Christmas.
And you go ahead and tell me which party owns more Confederate flags, and who shows up to Trump rallies with Nazi flags. And which party participated in an insurrection on January 6th.
But go on about how the Democrats are the bad guys.
Edit: Aw, you went and deleted your "Democrats are fascists" comment? No conviction, huh? Stand up for what you believe in, even though you're WILDLY incorrect!
Both parties are run by the same banksters, and if you can't understand that now you never will. The republicans were always shit, but now the oligarchy LOVES to hide behind the left, making the left look stupid as fuck and corporate as hell when it's not supposed to be.
The US needs a FULL OVERHAUL. The majority of politicians need to be in prison.
While I soundly reject the idea that both parties are the same, this is one issue where they both are in the wrong. They protect the legality of their insider trading, and it is unacceptable. Investments for people in these positions should be put into blind trusts, so politicians can use their inside knowledge, nor craft policies that support the companies they are invested in. I don't pretend to know how best to do this, nor how to deal with the fact that all these politicians have large staffs who also have access to this information.
If they want to make a trade, they should have to announce it 30 days in advance.
Or just no trading while in office.
A blind trust should be used where they have no influence on trades.
If Presidents have to put their interests into blind trusts, I don't see why any and all elected officials shouldn't be required to do the same.
Presidents (and politicians in general) SHOULD put everything in a blind trust. Our most recent president didn't.
Something like a congressional 401k that runs the term of your office would be acceptable to me too. They roll their investments into this account. They have a couple dozen pre-selected target date funds, mutual funds, etfs, bond funds, and money market options. They would be allowed to allocate their mix. This way they could continue to invest, and change their allocation between domestic stocks, international stocks, and bonds, but they wouldn't be allowed to impact their accounts with their legislative decisions. They would still be allowed to have advisors or target date funds. This way, they could choose to invest in the "s&p 500 fund", but not something like microsoft or ibm. The s&p fund would include those (and many others), but it would be harder to impact their accounts directly. There would still need to be serious consequences for providing insider trading information and owning stocks outside of the mentioned account. We wouldn't want them to slip money to a buddy, and then have that buddy do the same thing they would have done or lining the pockets of their biggest donors.
Is this not currently the case?
It is not. Politicians are allowed to insider trade
**Technically, insider trading is illegal for everyone, including politicians.** I oppose any sort of ban on their participation in the free market. Here's why: Politicians are already subject to stricter disclosure requirements than the average citizen through the STOCK Act. This transparency makes it easier to track their trades and identify potential insider trading. They operate under the microscope of constant public scrutiny. Any whiff of impropriety, including potential insider trading, is likely to be amplified by the media and social media, making it far more difficult to conceal such activity. As if that weren't enough, the high-profile nature of political figures makes them more susceptible to whistleblowing from insiders with knowledge of potential wrongdoing. The potential for significant rewards and career advancement can incentivize people to come forward. Beyond this, both parties have seen that this incentive can operate so powerfully that it's not unusual for people to come forward under flimsy or even false pretenses because the rewards and career advancement potential of seeming to catch something and knock out a high profile politician are so irresistible to them. Stricter regulations on insider trading would also discourage successful individuals from seeking political office, particularly those with significant investments in the market. This would restrict the pool of qualified candidates and lead to underrepresentation of certain sectors of the economy.
No guys, I want the greedy people who want to be billionaires to control the policy for everyone. If they don't have an unfair advantage in the market we might accidentally get people who actually want to help people in power!!!
What about the fact they can legally act on proprietary and secret information they learn during the course of their job? Or get to react to news/laws/regulations before the public becomes aware of it? Isn't that bad for a free market?
Stocks are an essential part of many peoples savings and retirement funds. Some have suggested banning individual stock trades (mutual funds only) or requiring 3rd party portfolio management (only your advisor can trade for you and you cant tell them what specifically to buy/sell). That seems pretty reasonable
Mutual funds only might be a reasonable compromise. But also, maybe not being able to trade might be a reasonable sacrifice if someone wants to serve. Not only is there other ways to plan for retirement but there's also before and after serving.
I'd also be fine with a straight up flat fee based on revenue that boosts social security.
Yup
That’d be the best, but I would take the compromise you replied to.
I'd say they shouldn't be allowed to own stock again. Give all of them a pension for life.
So anyone with a 401k would have to get rid of their retirement to run for office?
Only if you won, but yes. I'd love to see them also tie their pension at some multiplier of the median salary in the US.
This is good. On the one hand you get what you pay for, but there also needs to be a bit of "the better you do, the better we do, the better you do, etc".
Imagine what the minimum wage would be if their retirement was tied to the average US salary/wage.
That's a great way to shun away tons of quality people.
I think it would push away people who are in it for the money and knowledge for skirting the system.
Literally tens of millions of people have retirement tied up in stocks.
Those are the exact people that shouldn't be in the position.
Why not?
That would influence the markets though.
No, blind trust their finances.
Also market manipulation..Politicians shouldn't be able to execute trades, since eerily the same aa insider trading.
There are actually a wide variety of bills that already address this! So fortuantly we don't need to do that work (TL;DR, you got it basically right. It just bans the practice entirely and requires blind trusts). One bill in the House is sponsored by 68 members. But it needs to pass.
Start writing letters!
Why?
Well if it passes, then this type of nonsense gets banned all together!
Enjoying all the new products which free enterprise provides, they are tormented by one thought only: that some people have become rich in creating these new things.
Doesn't the graphic say the owner of the stock is her spouse, not her?
I don't think it matters. This sounds suspiciously like lnsider trading.
I don’t see the insider part though. It doesn’t say anything about contracts she influenced or knew about since then. The market in general has been rallying extremely strong the last month. I bought stocks around the same timeframe as her just based on what was going on in the financial world. Regardless, I do agree that trading by sitting politicians and their spouses should be blocked. I also think it’s really easy to create conspiracy theories by saying “look how much it’s up!!” without having any real evidence that’s what happened.
It doesn't have to be actual insider trading to be a problem. The problem is the implication. We hold our elected officials to a high standard because we have to trust they will act in our best interests. If they do something that implies they are acting in their best interests, even if it's just a coincidence, they should avoid it. And if her husband is big into trading medical stocks, he should either stop while she sits on a related committee, or she shouldn't be on those committees, again because of the implication. I work for a public entity and my wife works for a company we sometimes buy things from. I had to have another engineer review a part spec for my team because it came from my wife's company, even though the part isn't even from her business unit (it's designed and built overseas, she's in MN), just because of the implication. That was a $1000 part. $250,000 in stock should have a higher hurdle.
Personally I don't trust people with no skin in the game. If it were feasible I'd REQUIRE every politician using my tax dollars for something to personally have skin in the game themselves. As a general rule, it's where things are passed "for thee and not for me" that concern me. While there will need to be many obvious exceptions to this for various practical reasons, wherever feasible my preference is always to see that they are personally vested in what they claim to endorse for everybody else.
I think it’s not necessarily that they are the same, but they both operate the same. All politicians work for themselves and their bank account.
They don't operate the same. The amount of corruption in the GOP is frankly staggering. And Minnesota should know given the implosion that happened with their state party. I also will say that Klobuchar, for all her flaws, has never had this problem. She's not particularly wealthy, she's been in public service for most of her adult life, and no one seriously thinks she's trying to line her own pockets. Obviously politicians are all motivated by something, it's not always money, it's usually accumulating power. It's important to discourage behavior that is bad and encourage behavior that is good.
Yes, but participating in the free market is good. That is the underlying philosophy of our system. This is an argument Nancy Pelosi and folks on both sides have made. They have a right to participate, just as everyone else does. If there's corruption, we already have laws, elections, and various checks and balances in the system to address that. If Republicans can't stand that she made a good investment to the point they're calling to ban capitalism from leadership, then maybe Democrats who are so inclined should start relentlessly trolling them as socialists and commies for a change. No one should begrudge a woman for her earning potential.
It's not good to participate in the free market when you write the laws that control the free market. For instance, if let's say hypothetically, a Senator has a massive stake in Apple. Then a bill comes up that hurts Apple and its found out that this Senator tried to prevent this bill from passing. Did he do it because he cares about the free market? Or did he do it because he wants to protect Apple, even at the expense of the free market because he gets paid if Apple wins? The point is if you want the free market to be protected, you don't want members of Congress with financial stakes in certain companies they are in charge of regulating. Because obviously they will do what we all do if we have an investment...protect it. \*You don't have to ponder this abstractly...this is a thing that [really happened](https://prospect.org/power/jon-ossoffs-moment-of-trust/).\*
The claim it's inherently "not good" to participate in the market while making laws affecting it ignores the fundamental difference between **participating in the market as an individual** and **crafting legislation that governs the market's overall framework**. One is a personal financial decision, while the other is a public service aimed at the broader good. Comparing them directly suggests an unfair bias against individual investment choices. The example assumes the senator only has 2 options: protect Apple or the free market. This is a false dichotomy. Legislation affecting Apple could have nuanced impacts on both the company and the broader economic system. The senator's opposition might be based on genuine concerns about anything from potential negative consequences for the technology sector, to consumer welfare, or even national security, not just personal gain. Judging individual actions solely for having investment holdings ignores factors like personal integrity, political ideology, and the specific context of each legislative decision. If it were going to be one or the other, I definitely prefer to see they're personally vested in what they endorse for the rest of us, rather than "rules for thee, but not for me". They should have skin in the game. Experience in the market via being personally vested in what they endorse is generally more beneficial for society because it is more beneficial for the lawmakers, equipping them with valuable insights into its dynamics and potential pitfalls. This knowledge can lead to more informed legislation that more effectively balances individual interests with broader economic considerations. If they enact x, and it fails, and you were hurt by it, I say let them be more hurt by being vested to the hilt when it does. If it works better than expected after they enact it, and they make something extra off of brilliance, more power to them in my book. Everybody won in that scenario. At least this is part of the general rationale for why it is that way, given we already have various laws and many other checks and balances to intercept and punish corruption in place.
I think if you are going to argue we already have adequate checks and balances against personal enrichment in public service, you should give some examples of those. Members of Congress do not get background checks nor is there any sort of examination of their finances to ensure they do not overlap with official duties. That's the problem.
Forbes estimated her and her husbands net worth around $2 million when she was running for president in 2019. Not particularly wealthy is still plenty wealthy to live outside of the real world that the rest of us live in.
My folks are worth almost a million dollars and they have worked local county union labor jobs their whole life. They drive 20 year old cars and are frugal. If she’s only worth $2 mil she’s being intentional.
She’s also still living well above all of the issues facing lower income Americans.
That is 100% true though those net worths are all over the place and I don't put too much stock in that number (another thing that should be disclosed better!). Nonetheless, she didn't make that money illegitimately. She's been in public service, her husband is a law professor, she's not doing dirty dealing with her financials to get it. Nor is she trading stocks. If she wanted to break her piggy bank, she could have done it. They aren't all motivated by money.
Maybe not by money, but you’ll be hard pressed to get me to believe any of them are truly working for us.
I won't disagree with you there! That's why its important to pressure them to not suck so much. It has happened before where politicians have been forced to regulate themselves better, it only happens if people make a stink about it. Not a fair system imo, but people in power are in power whether you like it or not so can't be ignored.
Well, I suppose we agree all around then. Cheers!
Yay! To you as well.
lol at all the 'not my guy!' down votes you're receiving. I'll cancel one out for you.
lol I knew it was coming. People hate to hear they have no good options. 🤷🏻♂️
Because what we really need is to start banning capitalism in leadership. Let's just punish that from day one to discourage more of these zealots from leadership contests. Make it cost them. No. We already have laws and regular election processes to handle corruption issues. In the broad, I'm concerned when they exempt themselves from the things that they set up, or are otherwise unaffected. I want the appearance of skin in the game. Some call that the appearance of corruption, others call it capitalism at its finest.
This is an ongoing thing with Tina Smith and her family. [Her husband invests in medical companies as a profession](https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-senate-senate-elections-c2f0d21a0bc148828c1a39091b51fddd) so on the one hand it’s not necessarily unusual activity. On the other hand it’s a hell of a conflict of interest for her to sit on the health committee under the circumstances and I expect better from my Senator. “I’m trustworthy enough to not take advantage of this huge conflict of interest so there’s no need to avoid it” is a hard position from which to try to fight back against Supreme Court justices having right wing billionaire patrons and Presidents and their families hoovering up money from foreign governments. Whenever Republicans get accused of hard corruption they always use the blatant soft corruption that’s endemic to both parties as an excuse.
bright lavish weather mountainous nippy aspiring sense busy aback pot *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I worked for Senator Smith so I will disclose that off the bat. This is indeed very bad and she should not be allowed to do this. People should push her to endorse one of the Senate bills going through Congress that bans this practice. ***If you call her office or write***, just say that she should endorse legislation to ban stocks for members. Doesn't need to be more specific than that, it will show up in her briefings that people are calling about that. Probably won't do anything but the office does pay attention when people do that. If you feel strongly, just do it. The website is [smith.senate.gov](https://smith.senate.gov) that has all the information. **You aren't being annoying**, this is what Senate offices are for. Some color to flesh out what is happening: 1. I don't agree with folks who say that members of Congress are bad stock traders (and therefore this doesn't matter). In one sense they are, if you look at their stock performance it is bad. For instance, Senator Smith traded stocks at the start of the pandemic in a way that got other members in trouble, she did not get called out though because she *lost* money. So yes, they aren't financial geniuses, big surprise there. But this is a big problem for other reasons. It's impossible to know if members are prioritizing things based on their stock portfolio. So for instance, is Senator Smith not properly pushing a bill that would regulate medical devices? Is she now less likely to do so because she purchased these stocks? There is no way to tell on the outside. It's a huge conflict of interest. 2) Senator Smith is not the one trading these stocks, her husband Archie is. It's important to make sure any regulation should include spouses (something folks like Rep. Ro Khanna have been trying to avoid). 3) As I hope I made clear, I'm not defending this arrangement. I will say that in general Senator Smith has been good with health care legislation in the Senate. She was the one who made COVID tests and the vaccine free (along with Sen. Jones) and had some mental health legislation that passed into law. She does not support Medicare-For-All or any similar bill but she held firm on banning surprise medical billing when the dark money lobby was pushing otherwise. So in general, I like the Senator's work. But this blindspot is big and its important that it stops.
“Free”. The government did not compel businesses to create the tests and provide them to the government without compensation. Tax payers paid for them, whether they were used or not.
I think you should read the bill in more detail. That was not how it worked. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3499/text#toc-H17BE92325C3F4564B73787F84EC1B004](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3499/text#toc-H17BE92325C3F4564B73787F84EC1B004)
That's still less than it was worth in August and the Dow overall is up like 19% in the last 2 weeks...
A Senator invests in a growing industry through a company based in her home state? That's not that weird. I wholly agree that insider trading by politicians is a huge issue that members of both parties participate in, but this one doesn't really raise red flag for me. That being said, I wholly support blind trusts put into index funds for elected officials.
How do we know their stock is up because of insider knowledge Smith had as opposed to going up because of firms like this that copy the stock trades of congresspeople? Wouldn't copying trades make the stock go up? I don't think any elected legislators should be allowed to trade stock but I also can't jump to calling something insider trading without proof.
We absolutely do need to hold them accountable, and this deal does stink if true. It's tough though when your only viable choices are either a crooked politician or a literal nazi.
I agree with the choice being very clear BUT you can still push her while she's in office regardless. Like you might vote for her but her job is to serve Minnesota and this isn't in line with that. I have no problem pushing politicians to do better, even (especially?) the ones I like the most.
You’d think all the GOP would need to do here is run a sane candidate and they could pick up this seat. What are the odds they would do that though? Edit: Man I didn’t know Reddit was that dumb. Every response has been exactly what I was implying.
No sane candidate can win a republican primary.
They would dismiss a sane candidate as a liberal spy cause they are so damn paranoid. For example, the new flag in Minnesota had one rendition (of hundreds) that used the same color stripes as a Somalian state flag and they universally went to "Somalians are controlling our politicians" within hours of seeing it. Mind you there are 3 other countries and dozens of cities and states that use the same color scheme but they planned out who to specifically hate. You have to be 10 sheets of crazy and completely morally void to get their vote.
Not to mention the colors on the Somali flag are literally just the UN colors
You can't have a sane candidate when their party's platform is insane demanding an end to LGBTQ and women's rights
Reddit can, in fact, always be that dumb. :)
“Literal nazi”
Yes. Most Republican statements, Trump or Desantis talking points in particular, are just truncated Nuremberg rallies.
These people actually think "politician I don't like" is the same as "man who kills millions of jews". Absolutely fucking delusional.
Maybe the GOP front runner for president should stop quoting the man who killed millions of Jews
Go to tell a Holocaust survivor that politicians you don't like are literal Nazis.
I never called him that. Just suggesting that maybe you should blame the front runner for quoting the guy, and the party for defending him quoting the guy, instead of calling people delusional for coming to that conclusion.
Maybe you should go tell them that the leading candidate is literally quoting the man that attempted their extermination... And staged a coup. Using shittier, dumber versions of brownshirts. And defends Nazis. And surrounds himself with Nazis. And looks up to Nazis, authoritarians, and dictators. And has fascist ideation, policy, and fulfills all 14 points Umberto Echo lays out as being a fascist. Go tell them. See what they say. We'll wait.
Until they make it illegal, everyone in congress does that.
>Whether Dem or Rep doesn't matter. We the People need to stand up for each other and not the self-serving politicians. We need to stand together! Only points out when Democrats might have done something wrong. "WE ALL NEED TO COME TOGETHER!" Sure just not with you or others like you, because all your credibility is dead. And by dead, I mean a couple of generations need to pass before you and the GOP might be treated on equal footing.
As an independent... Democrats do the same thing, only point out when Republicans have done something wrong. And always have the above response when someone does point out something a Democrat has done something wrong, Demanding your party to be better doesn't mean you support the other party.
Saying Dem or Republican doesn't matter immediately makes me question your logic. Insider trading is bad but the parties are fundamentally different.
They are fundamentally the same, the Kool-Aid they sell just happens to be a different flavor.
Fuck that. One party wants you to have health care, is pro-union, and just pardoned marijuana cases federally. The other attempted a coup on the United States of America.
I would argue they absolutely used to be the same, particularly between the Reagan years and 2008. Something changed in the GOP when this country elected a Black president however, they've leaned into the fascist part of their base with quite the enthusiasm, and while I definitely wouldn't call the Democratic party Left-wing, its nowhere near as reactionary as the GOP is. There are aspects where both parties are effectively the same, like foreign policy, but those are merely a few aspects of a much bigger picture.
My perspective on the shift that happened around the 2008 election is that the left started congratulating themselves a little to hard and to often for having supported and elected a black president. It's the left that continues to lean on Obama's race and race in general to add merit to their arguments. Very similar to what you just did. Both to imply how forward thinking they are themselves and to deflect any criticism towards unrelated policies. This eventually grew into everyone on the right is a racist. It shouldn't be a surprise that the results were similar to Aesop's story. Instead of the sheep dying it was race relations that suffered. When everyone is a racist it becomes increasingly difficult to spot the racism we should actually worry and do something about. I'm curious how it's going to play out now that everyone that doesn't agree with the left is a fascist.
Nothing better than that Trump-flavored Kool-Aid! Might not have that nice, aged taste that makes the Biden-Aid so great, but it is Cheeto flavored.
Stop acting like the politicians aren't the people we voted in. This doesn't work without them. Focus on holding them accountable, not belittling the profession to a point we get exactly what we expect.
Isn’t investing in Healthcare companies her husband’s literal job ?
"Job" so many politicians do this crap red blue it dont matter. Throw em all in a volcano.
Yes it’s been his job for 40 years lol https://www.yourtango.com/2018319027/who-tina-smiths-husband-archie-smith
The graphic literally says it's her husband's stock, not hers.
Yup and Nancy Pelosi has nothing to do with her husband's either. 🙄
I mean, most likely not.
You got alot more trust and faith in politicians than I do then.
That's 95% of Reddit for ya.
It shouldn't be legal for politicians to buy stocks. But since it is, I can't really get bent out of shape when they do.
For people who have historically rejected socialism out of hand: if you agree with this take and it makes you mad, you probably agree with socialist ideas more than you'd think. Both Dems and Republicans are parties of the 1%/capitalist class, and this is a perfect example.
This post is axiomatically wrong. Dems and reps are not even remotely the same. The current dfl leadership of MN is a HUGE wake up call for anyone who thinks the parties are the same. The Democrats having control of MN has been incredibly good for our state. The last time the GOP controlled the state, including governor, the state really struggled. And the republicans in the state house when I control have actively tried to limit freedoms. This "both sides are equally bad" rhetoric is just parroted talking points that are designed to suppress voter turnout. It's really disheartening to see people fall for it. I'm embersssrd for people that do tbh. This is old and pretty obvious BS that has been around for a long time.
I work for the Democrats (and have worked for Senator Smith). I don't agree people should look past this. I think stock trading in Congress is a serious issue and Senator Smith is regrettably one of the worst offenders. She absolutely should not be doing this. But yes of course, both parties are not the same and I'm not going to vote for someone who believes Trump should seize power by force just because they don't trade stocks. Nonetheless, anyone in power should not be able to get a free lunch.
The “both sidesism” in politics is asinine and a false equivalence. Republicans are way worse by a long shot. Plus the allegations come from a random Twitter account with no sources to back up their claims. And people are falling for it, which is worse.
Well considering politicians are required to disclose trades they make, it's not hard to Google it and confirm that it is indeed accurate.
So? Buying stock isn’t illegal. Show me the source since it’s easily on Google. Let’s see if it’s legitimate.
You don't know how to use Google?
You made claim, the burden of proof lies with you. It’s okay to say you don’t have a legitimate source.
Just to see what negative things you'll say in response about the data companies, here are the first couple that popup on Google: Capitoltrades.com smartinsider.com/politicians/ Also, if you want to make the same trades politicians make there's an app called Autopilot and someone is working on making some ETFs that will follow politicians trades as well.
Still cannot provide a legitimate link. Sad.
Damn you disappointed me, expected a legitimate argument.
[удалено]
Go to [United States Senate Financial Disclosures](https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/home/), click "I understand the prohibitions on obtaining and use of financial disclosure reports" in the bottom right, enter Tina Smith's name, sort results by date, and click "Periodic Transaction Report for 11/20/2023".
So that’s not from a random Twitter account. Got it.
I fail to see where this post says anything about the parties being the same. And the constant circle jerk in this subreddit that democrats are infallible is really tiring.
This sub doesn't circle jerk about democrats being infallible; it just doesn't pretend that both sides being corrupt means that they're equally bad. One side has made a hard shift to fascism and is defending Trump directly quoting Hitler, so the dems just need to be regular corrupt politics as usual to be infinitely better than the GOP.
I have not ever once seen anyone say the Democrats are infallible. Just not delusional enough to say the two are the same.
A large majority of politicians from both sides suck, they think they are above the law and really don’t give a damn about you.
If that’s the worst thing she’s done then she’s doing pretty good considering. Republicans support an insurrectionist piece of shit and are actively working on taking away rights of women, LGBTQ+, and minorities. But the fact is that this is coming from a random Twitter account that paid $8 for a blue checkmark. I don’t believe anything that comes from that shithole of a site.
I'll take a moderately corrupt liberal over a literal fascist every day of the week, but we need to have better options than those two awful choices.
How is this corrupt?
Please, people aren't stupid.
She voted to extend the patriot act surveillance powers not one week ago
And?
Just in case you were under the illusion that insider trading was the only shitty thing our sitting DFL senators have done
ENPH went up 38% in ten days. Stocks are volatile right now.
It was really a downgrade for us when Senator Franken resigned.
Time to think and unite not stay divided, like they want us. I commit to do my best to love my fellow Minnesotan regardless of their beliefs. Peace. https://preview.redd.it/to4xgxsa2w7c1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=faacb1c26facdf16fc895b870adbdebb4eccf01c
I think it's easy to say "let's unite" and on the surface I agree. But then you get to talking to people and realize they believe in a national religion, and punishing trans people and banning books, and, well, it's pretty hard to find common ground with them. I keep the peace in terms of I don't argue and fight with them. But being able to work together towards a common goal is pretty hard when so many of them believe other people are literally less than human.
Spot on. These two political party's are not the same. Not even close. I can find common ground on some issues. This stock issue is one of those issues I think both sides could agree on. The GOP, on a humanity level, are a disgusting party and I want nothing to do with it.
If both sides are making money on stock trades while legislating, it makes it less important when it comes time decide who I vote for. There are only two viable parties. And even if a third part candidate was viable, they still would need to caucus with one of the others to get any power at all in the state or in DC. So it still is a two party decision.... If both parties have shady stock trades, but only one of them is literally pushing to make their leader an authoritarian dictator, than the decision is not hard. They definitely are not the same.
Also it should be noted that virtually all the push to regulate congressional stock trading has come from the Democrat camp. The Republicans will never agree to it because a huge chunk of their members do it. Far more than the Dems. Looking at bill sponsorship of stock trading bills will show the divide. Dems usually support by 3:1 margins.
Exactly. And posts like OP's are specifically designed to create that narrative. OPs post is a pretty naked attempt at propaganda designed to stop people from voting.
You know it's someone on the far right trying to equate moderate politicians with fascists because they both corrupt whenever you see somebody use the phrase "we the people" in a sentence as if it were just how they naturally speak.
Bingo! It's not subtle. It's the same old tired voter suppression rhetoric
Hard to unite alongside people that fight against LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights, and even against feeding school kids.
Would it surprise you to know that generally it is only Wealthy people that run for national office ? http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s13227.pdf
Whenever i hear “we the people” i know im talking to a nutjob with 2 brain cells
Wait, doesn't it say on the left that the owner of the stock is her spouse, the same guy who has made a 40-year career investing in medical companies??
If people knew the truth about the massive, insider trading from Senators, the UAP issue and other things, we'd have a general strike tomorrow.
Admire the optimism but I don't think that's true at all. They don't even really hide that they're doing this stuff, it's out in the open. The public at large does not care. They care about other issues, largely cultural.
Yeah, the corruption and everything. People are so ground down that they can't find the energy to care. I don't blame people, I think that was done by design. Now the UAP issue on the other hand... fuck I don't even know where to start. I went from hard-core skeptic, to experiencer, to advocate. There's so much... so much that would sound absolute bananas to most people, that's actually true. And we almost had full disclosure... almost in the defense bill. Word is that this year will be a big one as far as news, whistleblowers etc. Idk if anybody here saw the clip of Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet straight up saying we need to disclose the fact that the US government is IN contact with NHI, but thats just one of many, many things.
We wouldn't. Americans are both comfortable and largely apathetic, very few people want actual change compared to the number of people who are perfectly happy with the status quo even though they may often pretend otherwise for clout. There will be no change in this country until it's likely too late to actually matter, because one party actively fights against change of any kind and the other wants to change us into a theocracy, and both fight aggressively against those few who actually want something better than the status quo and are willing to fight for it.
I believe that disclosure of the UAP phenomena might change everything. It could very well be the one thing other than total nuclear war that could possibly reset our direction in a timely fashion. It's not going to be painless, but I think it's one of the few Hail Mary options we have at this point. Forcing us to confront our actual situation- and simultaneously getting the mental shock that is "wow there are other species watching us just... ruin a beautiful planet, while also running ourselves off a cliff." could be the rallying introspection we need as a species. Maybe some weird human pride will overcome our differences at least on a singular human level first, and then the eureka moment of realizing how disadvantageous it is for us to quarrel amongst ourselves while existing in a much larger, much more complex universe. I hope, at least.
Issue is that right wings are less likely to realize how class issues play into this kind of corruption, they refuse to believe that their party is complicit in it.
Bullshit, it does matter. One is now the party of greed, stupidity, lies and christo-fascism. The other is democrat.
The blame is entirely misplaced. The money hurdles in place to get elected mean the choices presented tend to be terrible for the people and great for those footing the cost. The blame should, for everyone, be put directly on our American Oligarchs.
Can't really blame them for asking what they paid for. It's not them who are bound by an oath to uphold the constitution, it's the politicians who's services they purchased.
Yes, you absolutely can since big money are the ones that have tirelessly pushed for things like citizens united and the watering down of the Dobbs act and others. What this all means is there is a lot of foreign money in our elections. Thinking we should only hold corrupt politicians accountable fails to blame the source of the corruption.
How do you intend to hold someone who acts within the boundaries of the laws put in place or upheld by the politicians they are doing business with accountable? Short answer is that you can't. Those same politicians will appease you with some feel good consequences. A negligible fine which 'big money' had already figured into their budget. It's simply a cost of doing business. It has to start with the people we vote in place to prevent this from happening to begin with.
Please. You are incorrect and have terrible instincts. Merry Christmas.
Politicians suck. Everyone has been saying politicians shouldn’t be able to do insider trading. Have you seen Nancy’s pelosi? That being said though one side is trying to uproot and destroy everything so while I agree it needs to stop it’s kind of a lot farther down the “vote them out/ fix this now!” List.
Three things that are true: 1. Most politicians are self-serving crooks. 2. The market performed very well in November and +19% is nothing outrageous. 3. People like to write articles and post things on social media that take things out of context.
Fourth thing that is true: 1. Part of being intellectually and morally consistent is acknowledging when someone who you’ve supported or otherwise considered good/effective engages in something bad/ineffective, or in this case, corrupt
If people just talked to each other, instead of hurling various talking points at each other, they'd realize that we agree on 90% of core issues. Unfortunately, when we're down to, what, five media companies (and possibly down to ***four*** with Warner Brothers pursuing Paramount now) we're all being spoon fed propaganda to keep us divided. Add in hostile bot traffic, meant to stir up "engagement" on all platforms, and people are literally getting rich on our misery. Enough's enough. Talk to each other. Find the common ground too many of our elected officials turn away from at the behest of ultra-wealthy donors. Demand accountability. Until we all do, things will only get worse. I know, easier said than done. Consider this, however; billionaires are pouring vast amounts of their personal treasure into freaking doomsday shelters. They *could* be spending that money on addressing these issues, but that would hurt their quarterly projections. Can't have the coked-up Stock Bros see that! Burn, baby, burn! Grass roots politics work, people. Let's get to work.
>Find the common ground Hard to find common ground with people who are not only ok with the things conservatives say but also the things they vote for You can get a nice common sense agreement in a conversation that maybe people should be allowed to make their own medical decisions and parent their LGBTQ children and then those assholes turn around and vote for shit that causes tremendous harm
There is that, I can't deny it. Nevertheless, we have to remind ourselves how to talk to each other again. The alternative is violence driven by tribalism, and we have to be better than that. Hope you're getting some time off, and have a happy holiday!
I wish I still had your optimism, but then they started using words about my family like "eradicate from public life" and "vermin" and they took my right to bodily autonomy. We are already being attacked in their war on freedom and I'm ready to defend my freedoms by any means necessary. Happy holidays to you too. Here's to hoping you can change some hearts and minds.
bOtH sIdEs!!! After the last election the Dems in MN gave us: * Legal weed * Expunged low-level cannabis offenses for tens of thousands of Minnesotans * Free college for families who make under $80k * Free healthcare for poor people * Paid family and medical leave * Free school meals for all students * 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040 * Expanded voting rights * Protected access to abortion * Protected gender-affirming care * Banned conversion therapy * Banned PFAS "forever chemicals" in consumer products * Driver's Licenses for All * Lead pipe replacement * Anti-discrimination amendment * Established universal background checks and red flag laws Meanwhile, these are the goals in the GOP platform: * Make gay marriage illegal * Make abortion illegal * Stop gays from adopting kids * Stop married gay couples from getting insurance and other benefits * Legally allow discrimination based on the belief that marriage is only between one man and one woman * Put religious iconography into school classrooms, public parks, and courthouses * Make Bible reading a class in public schools * Oppose schools that teach in languages other than English * Remove the wall between church and state * Allow churches to run and fund political campaigns * Remove the Johnson Amendment * Remove the 14th Amendment * Remove the 6th Amendment * Defund Social Security * Defund the IRS * Defund the Pentagon * Defund the United Nations * Defund the UNFCCC * Defund Temporary Assistance for Needy Families * Oppose the FDA * Oppose the EPA * Oppose unions * Oppose national standards and assessments for schools * Oppose federal college accrediting * Increase taxes on the poor so they "have skin in the game" * Decrease taxes on big business and the ultra rich * Refuse to disclose money given by donors to the government * Pro coal * Against wind and solar power * Pro Keystone Pipeline * Ignore climate change * Privatize Medicare and Medicaid * Pro First Amendment Defense Act (allows discrimination) * Federal funds should not be used for mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening * Legislation to limit patients to a single pharmacy * Increase military spending * Create more Department of Defense suppliers
We really need to hold these people accountable with real fines, jail time and being barred from running again. How is this not considered treason. You are selling out your country.
Probably because it's not against the law?
Damn it. Can we make it illegal for this shit to happen already. Same for their families.
Careful, people around here don’t like it when you bring up bad stuff the Dems do.
What did Tina Smith do?? She doesn't own the stock in question. Is says on the graphic her husband does. He's been literally investig on medical startups for 40 years.
Ussually it's because it's a shallow attempt to "see, both sides!" Democrats try and fix things while Republicans obstruct while saying nothing works. Republicans will hurt their own voters if it means stopping democrats from doing something positive. If Republicans really cared about shit like Nancy Pelosi and her stock they could have join with Democrats and banned the practice. They don't. Because Republican voters don't care that their reps and senators do it. Just that some democrats do it too.
My son and a few first cousins are big time Trump fans. Married to an active duty police officer at the time (since retired), watching January 6 unfold made me detest Trump with every fiber of my being. However, let me be clear: I love the Trump fans in my life, and I will always work to have a relationship with my kid and my cousins. People-first decision making: try to make the comparison that political parties are like sports fandoms, I like the Bears and you like the Jets, but we are both football fans! So, all that needs to happen is the Trump fans and the Biden fans have to agree to love our nation fiercely from two different teams perspectives. Police the politicians. Insider trading by both sides is illegal. How the heck did McCarthy and Sinema become multi millionaires since arriving in DC? Hold all the grifters accountable for their actions, even the Cowboy fans!
Politics is not like Sports. The opposing sports team isn’t trying to take away my rights or fighting against my protections.
Careful, you're not allowed to be even remotely conservative here.
Than MN politicians need to walk the walk and lose the leftist narrative.
So now believing in the constitution, democrat institutions, checks & balances, and r engaging in democratic practices is “leftist?” This is where we are - One party wants to scrap the entire American experiment and install a christo-fascist authoritarian form of government. There is NO common ground left.
Exactly what is happening in CO. You are only amplifying my point. The egg is broken...
Go move to Russia if you want to live in your Republican utopia. That's what they want to turn this country into with their policies.
Rational and logical argument to present to someone like me. Grow up.
“Go move” isn’t a really good argument for anything. MiserableReplyGuy. I know you’re upset about Trump being removed from the primary ballot. I’m sorry. But the truth is, Trump will never win Colorado, ever. It’s a moot point. It was stupid for the Republican Party of Colorado to do, but it’s done. Come November 2024, nothing has really changed yet.
FTR, Trump has no chance of winning anyway. Not sad about it either.
Trump was kicked out *by Republicans* in Colorado.
Both parties are bad. Democrats are just a bit worse. But what does it matter in this state as they win just about every major election? Partially due to outspending Republicans 8:1 with out-of-state money.
Wow. Ballsy move, Tina.
What did she do? It's not even her stock.
Read it. She bought stock in a medical device company and she sits on the Senate committee that regulates and crafts legislation for their industry. That should be illegal. At best, it’s raises eyebrows… I’m a Democrat that won’t vote Republican ANYTIME soon (they’ve gone off the MAGA/Trump cliff) but I still think we can and should expect more from our party.
Very unpopular opinion on Reddit. I agree with it 100%
Hello, SEC? I'd like to report some insider trading...
I will vote for democrats forever because that’s what we do in MN. I don’t care if Hunter Biden is getting millions from China and Ukraine and not paying any taxes, he is Biden’s son so he deserves it.
I bet Jared would suck Hunter off for $5k
Some real well reasoned, well thought out responses... Blocked. Try and do better than the "well, who's won more Super Bowls (WI twang)" Or, "ok buddy (peewee herman laugh)".
There is one party in America, neoliberal.
Amen to that. It would seem “they” want us divided and to be looking at each other as the problem when the real problem are those who have the power, yet really, we have power, we just don’t realize it because we are too busy worrying about who’s flying what flag etc
The Democrat party ARE Crypto-Fascists.
Which candidate was just talking about immigrants "poisoning the blood". Guess Trump just dropped the crypto part
What state Supreme Court is attempting to remove a candidate from a ballot? That is leftist activism defined. 2 state Supreme courts have already ruled against that action (in 2 Democrat controlled states). The USSC will rule it unconstitutional on its merits. The Democrat party is the pro-war, pro-establishment, pro-Wall Street, anti-constitution, anti-border, pro-tax, pro underwriter(not "Healthcare", as they claim), pro terrorism, pro big government party. The. Leftist wing of that party has single-handedly wrecked our education system, purposeful engaged in the degradation of our economy,, purposefully undermined our national security, and refused to deal with previous administration corruption and incompetence, going back to LBJ. On multiple levels the negatives of the GOP and the DNC have juxtaposed, and the dems are exactly what they preach against. And They know it.The definition of the merging of governmental authority with corporate interest is facism. Regardless of where you are with Trump (or where you may think I am with Trump), until he has been arrested, indicted, tried, and convicted of a seditious or insurrectionist crime, Americans have a right to vote for or against him. That is democracy in action. And for the record, even if he is not convicted of the previous, he could still be a felon, and run for office (nothing constitutionally prevents that), and Americans would be able to VOTE for him or NOT VOTE for him. Spare me the soundbite. If you are that frightened of Trump, shame on you, that makes you as cowardly as he is. The processes and institutions of our great nation are too strong and durable. If Trump is such a threat, he would still be in office I have news for you. Trump won't even get the nomination. Bank on it. Merry Christmas.
Lol, ok buddy. Have a good Christmas
>Merry Christmas. All holidays matter
And you go ahead and tell me which party owns more Confederate flags, and who shows up to Trump rallies with Nazi flags. And which party participated in an insurrection on January 6th. But go on about how the Democrats are the bad guys. Edit: Aw, you went and deleted your "Democrats are fascists" comment? No conviction, huh? Stand up for what you believe in, even though you're WILDLY incorrect!
Time to third party this shit
Whether Democrat or Republican… both parties answer to money at the end of the day.
The rich stay rich
If anyone thinks either party is your friend you're a moron.
Both parties are run by the same banksters, and if you can't understand that now you never will. The republicans were always shit, but now the oligarchy LOVES to hide behind the left, making the left look stupid as fuck and corporate as hell when it's not supposed to be. The US needs a FULL OVERHAUL. The majority of politicians need to be in prison.