Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jh00ker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jh00ker

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

View on HN

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

Beating the market isn't evidence of insider trading. Everyone invested deeply in tech beat the market, which is what Paul Pelosi did. If he did trade with insider information, he did it in a way that was subtle enough to look sufficiently like normal trading. This is nothing like the smoking gun of a 4x spike on oil futures 1 hour before a major announcement or a hyperspecific bet on Polymarket.

But the suggestion a bunch of Lawyers are better traders than average also stretches creduility.

Somehow, Congress beating the market simply on savvy is huge ask to believe.

That article is about certain individuals, not Congress as a whole. By definition, some individuals are going better than average.

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?

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.

Doesn't that only reinforce my point?

If I'm going to vote for the wrong candidate, and it's close then isn't even more important that I don't vote?

>But ultimately there has to be one side that even if you don't overall like them you would still rather they get elected I'm not able to respond to this within the confines of the rules here. I apologize is that's not satisfying, but it has the virtue of being the truth.

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.

If you want to judge all of the people living in the USA that is of course your prerogative. Or all people in Russia for the crimes of the Russian government, or all people in China for the crimes of the CCP.

I'm not going to be concerned with the opinions of people who generalize to that degree.

> 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.

Consider this; if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: “well if you don’t vote you have no right to complain”. But where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with.

(George Carlin quote - intended to be humorous)

"better" for whom?

For everybody. Since I didn't vote for the wrong candidate I offend fewer people, I get yelled at less and I maintain more friendships.

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.

Ok, then I could vote for myself next time. Seems like a waste of time for the counters, the registration officers, and all the other volunteers involved.

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”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com