6 ms·

> Elon: divest from your private assets or get the fuck out of the government. Otherwise you're a corrupt official. You're directing this at Elon - but you are

by Alupis 2y ago

> Elon: divest from your private assets or get the fuck out of the government. Otherwise you're a corrupt official. You're directing this at Elon - but you are aware just about every single congress critter, and every other high-level government official holds private assets and profits off of them during their tenure in the government... right? > Exclusivity agreements with private companies have NO FUCKING PLACE in public governments. I hope you were this upset about Cheney as well. What about Palantir and their army of lobbyists? Oracle and theirs? Sig Sauer and theirs? Lockheed Martin and theirs? AWS and theirs? I can go on forever... This is super common in government, and no it's not limited to one party or another. It's everywhere. It is wrong every time. But only now we get the all-caps writing and chest thumping only the likes of reddit can be proud of.

bobthepanda 2y ago
What's notable is that the current crop of people who were just elected includes people who said they were going to introduce an insider-trading bill and then became some of the most prolific ones once in office. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/congress-stock-trading-ban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/congress-stoc...
- Alupis 2y ago
  Well, AOC has been threatening for several years to introduce a bill to curb this. But... hasn't, and I'd be willing to bet we already know why. Many others have promised the same and done the same as well... Nancy Pelosi is perhaps the most prolific insider trader of our lifetime. None of this is new... it's been going on since before any of us were born. It should be put to an end - but we can't pretend the current administration is doing something so abhorrent and clutch our collective pearls in shock. We can't hold one party (that we disagree with) to a higher standard than our "own" people. That's hypocritical and not a foundation upon-which agreement and consensus can be formed.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    You mean, this bill she hasn't introduced, and hasn't worked on since 2023? https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-fitzpatrick-mills-krishnamoorthi-launch-bipartisan-effort https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-...
    - Alupis 2y ago
      I'm not aware this has made it to the floor yet. If it has, I stand corrected. I interned in government long ago, but learned many bills are written for constituent consumption and never are intended to get a vote. As-is it likely won't pass because it limits spouses and dependents as well - which will get into lots of complicated personal rights issues. The same rights issues that have been argued in favor of keeping the status quo (in regards to sitting members). Spouses and dependents didn't "sign up" to become government officials, so it'll be difficult to limit their liberties in this way. I do support the sentiment, however.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        > But... hasn't, and I'd be willing to bet we already know why. The Speaker of the House controls what bills get put to a vote. In the time AOC has been in Congress, that has been either a Republican, who would never put that bill to a vote; or Pelosi, who also said she would not do it.
  - segfaultex 2y ago
    Pelosi isn’t even the most prolific inside trader in the house of reps. This sort of ignorant and lazy argumentation is part of the problem.
jahsome 2y ago
I'm interpreting your statement about "only now" as an implication that there was no dissent about corrupt government officials prior to Musk purchasing the country. Is that actually what you intended to say?
watwut 2y ago
To be fair, the level of open corruption in this particular government is pretty unprecedented.
- Alupis 2y ago
  If you've been around for a while, and are willing to take off the rose-colored-glasses momentarily, you will realize it is not unprecedented. Some of us have been howling about these issues for decades. Who were the primary benefactors of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act? What about the CHIPS Act? Follow the money and you will be completely god smacked at the insanity that's being going on right under people's noses. The riot is quelled by drawling people into their camps... left or right, red or blue, us vs. them.
  - GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
    Do you want a cookie? Just because it’s taken others longer to recognize corruption doesn’t lessen the seriousness of the situation.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      The "recognition" is dependent on which party is in office. That's the main point - the hypocrisy. As soon as Democrats win the Oval Office again, the screaming will cease, just as it always has - just as it always will. "Our Side" can do no wrong, it's "your side" that's corrupt and evil. Republicans strongly asserted the Biden Administration was corrupt - and this was brushed aside by Democrats. Same as with Trump the first time around, Obama before him, Bush, so on and so forth. People are being manipulated by their leaders because it's politically convenient and raises a lot of money.
      - segfaultex 2y ago
        More lazy both sides nonsense. Dems don’t put Elon in charge and let him tear the gov up. Dems don’t tell ice to kidnap people in plain clothes Just because corruption exists everyone doesn’t mean it exists equally. You’re pushing a lazy train of thought
theyinwhy 2y ago
your post reeks of fascist populism: - de-humanizing language - we are not that bad, others are/were doing it too (this is mostly flawed, as is your comparison)
- Alupis 2y ago
  Not everything you disagree with is "fascism". We expect maturity around here.
  - monetus 2y ago
    I think they were making a bad comparison purposefully mocking you to make a point.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      You can't really tell these days. Pretty sad reality we're living in. Everything we disagree with is levied as the worst evil the world has ever seen. Nuance doesn't exist, and there's no room for healthy disagreement. The boogeyman is everywhere it seems.
      - theyinwhy 2y ago
        The word "critter" might be used differently in your area. Perhaps you are using it casually, not meaning to dehumanize other people. But be aware that what is going on in our country is fascist populism. Fascism did not start with mass killings. It started with calling other human beings critter, vermin, pest that we need to get rid off. We disallow others to speak up in public and deport them. Deportations already lead to deaths depending on your political, sexual, religious,... orientation. Fascist regimes start with language and are fueled by deaths.
        ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Calling congresspeople critters (or swamp people, reptiles, snakes, clowns, vermin, etc) is not a lurch towards fascism; it's the status quo. Dehumanizing congress has been a national pastime since congress started getting dysfunctional in the late 20th century. "Congresscritter" has been part of the vernacular since at least the 70s (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/congresscritter https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/congresscritter)
voxl 2y ago
There are so many things wrong with your comment, lets list a few: 1. False equivalence: Elon Musk's interaction with the federal government is unprecedented and comparing it to lobbying of companies is hysterically bad faith. 2. Appeal to hypocrisy: whether or not someone cares about Cheney or others profiting or doing bad things in government, that has no impact on the argument against Musk. 3. Ad hominem: yes, yes, only the likes of reddit, except here we are, not on reddit. 4. Tone policing: the content of ones argument is completely irrelevant to how emotional the present it or how emotionally they feel about it. They may thump their chests as much as they like.

by Alupis 2y ago

bobthepanda 2y ago

What's notable is that the current crop of people who were just elected includes people who said they were going to introduce an insider-trading bill and then became some of the most prolific ones once in office. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/congress-stock-trading-ban.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/congress-stoc...

Alupis 2y ago
Well, AOC has been threatening for several years to introduce a bill to curb this. But... hasn't, and I'd be willing to bet we already know why. Many others have promised the same and done the same as well... Nancy Pelosi is perhaps the most prolific insider trader of our lifetime. None of this is new... it's been going on since before any of us were born. It should be put to an end - but we can't pretend the current administration is doing something so abhorrent and clutch our collective pearls in shock. We can't hold one party (that we disagree with) to a higher standard than our "own" people. That's hypocritical and not a foundation upon-which agreement and consensus can be formed.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  You mean, this bill she hasn't introduced, and hasn't worked on since 2023? https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-fitzpatrick-mills-krishnamoorthi-launch-bipartisan-effort https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-...
  - Alupis 2y ago
    I'm not aware this has made it to the floor yet. If it has, I stand corrected. I interned in government long ago, but learned many bills are written for constituent consumption and never are intended to get a vote. As-is it likely won't pass because it limits spouses and dependents as well - which will get into lots of complicated personal rights issues. The same rights issues that have been argued in favor of keeping the status quo (in regards to sitting members). Spouses and dependents didn't "sign up" to become government officials, so it'll be difficult to limit their liberties in this way. I do support the sentiment, however.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      > But... hasn't, and I'd be willing to bet we already know why. The Speaker of the House controls what bills get put to a vote. In the time AOC has been in Congress, that has been either a Republican, who would never put that bill to a vote; or Pelosi, who also said she would not do it.
- segfaultex 2y ago
  Pelosi isn’t even the most prolific inside trader in the house of reps. This sort of ignorant and lazy argumentation is part of the problem.

jahsome 2y ago

I'm interpreting your statement about "only now" as an implication that there was no dissent about corrupt government officials prior to Musk purchasing the country. Is that actually what you intended to say?

watwut 2y ago

To be fair, the level of open corruption in this particular government is pretty unprecedented.

Alupis 2y ago
If you've been around for a while, and are willing to take off the rose-colored-glasses momentarily, you will realize it is not unprecedented. Some of us have been howling about these issues for decades. Who were the primary benefactors of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act? What about the CHIPS Act? Follow the money and you will be completely god smacked at the insanity that's being going on right under people's noses. The riot is quelled by drawling people into their camps... left or right, red or blue, us vs. them.
- GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
  Do you want a cookie? Just because it’s taken others longer to recognize corruption doesn’t lessen the seriousness of the situation.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    The "recognition" is dependent on which party is in office. That's the main point - the hypocrisy. As soon as Democrats win the Oval Office again, the screaming will cease, just as it always has - just as it always will. "Our Side" can do no wrong, it's "your side" that's corrupt and evil. Republicans strongly asserted the Biden Administration was corrupt - and this was brushed aside by Democrats. Same as with Trump the first time around, Obama before him, Bush, so on and so forth. People are being manipulated by their leaders because it's politically convenient and raises a lot of money.
    - segfaultex 2y ago
      More lazy both sides nonsense. Dems don’t put Elon in charge and let him tear the gov up. Dems don’t tell ice to kidnap people in plain clothes Just because corruption exists everyone doesn’t mean it exists equally. You’re pushing a lazy train of thought

theyinwhy 2y ago

your post reeks of fascist populism: - de-humanizing language - we are not that bad, others are/were doing it too (this is mostly flawed, as is your comparison)

Alupis 2y ago
Not everything you disagree with is "fascism". We expect maturity around here.
- monetus 2y ago
  I think they were making a bad comparison purposefully mocking you to make a point.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    You can't really tell these days. Pretty sad reality we're living in. Everything we disagree with is levied as the worst evil the world has ever seen. Nuance doesn't exist, and there's no room for healthy disagreement. The boogeyman is everywhere it seems.
    - theyinwhy 2y ago
      The word "critter" might be used differently in your area. Perhaps you are using it casually, not meaning to dehumanize other people. But be aware that what is going on in our country is fascist populism. Fascism did not start with mass killings. It started with calling other human beings critter, vermin, pest that we need to get rid off. We disallow others to speak up in public and deport them. Deportations already lead to deaths depending on your political, sexual, religious,... orientation. Fascist regimes start with language and are fueled by deaths.
      - ToValueFunfetti 2y ago
        Calling congresspeople critters (or swamp people, reptiles, snakes, clowns, vermin, etc) is not a lurch towards fascism; it's the status quo. Dehumanizing congress has been a national pastime since congress started getting dysfunctional in the late 20th century. "Congresscritter" has been part of the vernacular since at least the 70s (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/congresscritter https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/congresscritter)

voxl 2y ago

There are so many things wrong with your comment, lets list a few: 1. False equivalence: Elon Musk's interaction with the federal government is unprecedented and comparing it to lobbying of companies is hysterically bad faith. 2. Appeal to hypocrisy: whether or not someone cares about Cheney or others profiting or doing bad things in government, that has no impact on the argument against Musk. 3. Ad hominem: yes, yes, only the likes of reddit, except here we are, not on reddit. 4. Tone policing: the content of ones argument is completely irrelevant to how emotional the present it or how emotionally they feel about it. They may thump their chests as much as they like.