Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

How many people in congress made the exact same bet on the exact same information, and for them it's "legal?"
 help



None, because Congress wasn't informed of the Maduro raid until afterwards?

Usually there is this gang of 6 or gang of 8 who is still kept informed.

Weren’t they famously kept in the dark for this and Iran?

We have finally figured out the purpose of the War Powers Act.

We aren’t talking about in official capacity

People act like the pervasiveness of insider trading in Congress is an indisputable fact, when there have been only a few trades with suspicious timing, which is similar to what you would expect statistically from 535 wealthier people trading with no insider information. The only case where I feel like insider trading is likely was Richard Burr's sales before COVID.

Congress (plausibly) beats the market: https://www.ft.com/content/14339d5b-5a5f-4e4a-8293-ff3a2e25d...

Pelosi has made many suspicious trades: https://insider-trading.org/the-nancy-pelosi-insider-trading...

Suspicious trades before Trump's Iran announcements: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge0grppe3po


It is legal and until we vote for people who will outlaw it we only have ourselves to blame.

Easy to say, hard to do, when your two "choices" at the ballot box represent slightly different groups of wealthy donors.

Vote in primaries. Also wealthy donors probably care less about whether a candidate can self-enrich with insider trading.

Ah enlightened centrism rears its head again. Remember folks: at all points both sides are exactly the same /s.

If you guilt me into voting, I'll probably vote for somebody you don't like.

Isn't it better that I don't vote?


> Isn't it better that I don't vote?

Maybe. I'm not actually that invested in people voting. But that doesn't negate the hypocrisy of complaining when you're, through inaction, endorsing the status quo.


There have been multiple times where the final vote count was the difference of a handful of votes. No one is guilting anyone to vote and some will say that neither party represents what they want and that sucks. But ultimately there has to be one side that even if you don't overall like them you would still rather they get elected. So vote for who you think might be best. And if they have policies you don't agree then contact your representative and say "I voted for you but do not want xyz policy". The more who speak up the better.

No. It is better that you vote. For at the end of the day you can:

1. know you tried to express your wishes

2. know that the outcome is because people expressed their wishes

3. realise the balance between 1. and 2. whether the outcome is as you hoped, and especially if it is not as you hoped.

This is important because hanging back and saying "Well I didn't vote for them!" is by default not supporting democracy as your country views it.


"better" for whom?

I'm not American. And surprise: regardless of your reasons you get judged by the government you put in power, since foreign policy is how the rest of us experience your choices.

And your choices are evidently you're completely okay with the current situation as well.


Everyone knows how the parties are different

Its valid to be more annoyed by the ways that they’re the same

your cause is not my cause, its better for the viability of your preferred party if you remember that


Its valid to say a lot of things. But it doesn't escape you from having to own those choices.

You are what you'll accept, and you looked at the choices given and said "I'm okay with either one".

Because the consequences of whatever mutual dissatisfaction you had still means one of them gained power and implemented their agenda anyway. And you were okay with that.

You don't get to not make a decision and then pretend you aren't culpable for your inaction.


the other person was talking about not making a decision, so you've transposed an idea not mentioned at all onto my comment

good luck out there

what to remember: the goal of the parties are to win friends and influence people, it's a weird meme that you aren't doing that and neither is the other party. time to re-evaluate the communication style yeah? proselytizing isn't working


The idea that nobody in American politics is trying to win friends nor influence people is indeed a very weird meme! As you say, that implies there's a big lane of persuasion that isn't being filled for some reason, even though everyone who's heard of Dale Carnegie knows it ought to be.

Have you considered the possibility that the meme might be false? That would explain neatly why it's so weird.


amusing.

parties are losing members and partisan’s methods are not effective

there is a big lane of persuasion that isn’t being filled


“Any clearance holders thinking of cashing in their access and knowledge for personal gain will be held accountable”

Yeah right.


I think you misspelled “the White House”



Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: