5 ms·

Nah, it’s just more visible. It’s not that much of a sea change. And it’s ridiculously naive to pretend that the major countries in Europe don’t have their ow

by sneak 2mo ago

Nah, it’s just more visible. It’s not that much of a sea change. And it’s ridiculously naive to pretend that the major countries in Europe don’t have their own mechanisms to regularly and effectively bypass any democratic inconveniences when necessary. They regularly push through things that no constituent would ever want or vote for.

LastTrain 2mo ago
Nah, it’s worse now than ever.
jacquesm 2mo ago
You're right, just the other day our MP lined his pockets to the tune of a couple of billion, pumped his shitcoin, tipped off his friends about about the stock market movements he was going to cause, sent a couple of good deals to his kids and threatened war on a couple of countries just to please his buddies. And that's just the last couple of months... /s
- FireBeyond 2mo ago
  Oh, and will sell you access to his market-moving tweets for $100K a month, so you know and can get your stock trades set before the plebes do.
FireBeyond 2mo ago
Meanwhile the President sits in the Oval Office and says, in a televised interview, with absolutely no shame, that all of his kids and family are insider trading, all the time.
- ffsm8 2mo ago
  Meanwhile in Germany insider trading is completely legal for politicians. Well, not insider trading - but it's definition supposedly doesn't extend beyond internal business information. (At least that's what people keep telling me, im not a lawyer)
  - dubbel 2mo ago
    Insider trading is it course not legal for politicians in Germany, as you could have found out without being a lawyer. That being said, transparency/reporting duties for members of parliament/ministers can and should definitely be improved.
    - ffsm8 2mo ago
      The point was that the definition of insider trading does not extend to politicians buying/selling from their "insider knowledge" as it's not internal business knowledge. Hence it is legal (in Germany) for politicians to buy/sell right before passing laws which influence the valuation of companies. Which I may add: you could've easily found out yourself too if you looked up what I wrote.
      - phatfish 2mo ago
        Which laws get passed under complete secrecy that politicians can trade based on? They are usually debated for months/years. Even if something is rushed through fast (like during COVID?) it is public knowledge. The issue in America is the president has more power to act unilaterally (maybe to address his/her own interests, maybe not) than any European politician.
      - lxgr 2mo ago
        > Hence it is legal (in Germany) for politicians to buy/sell right before passing laws which influence the valuation of companies. Are you sure about that? European legal theory for insider trading implicitly covers more cases than the US without needing to explicitly enumerate them as far as I understand (in a nutshell, trading on insider information is illegal regardless of the source or whether any fiduciary duty was breached), and I'd be surprised if this case were not covered.
Lio 2mo ago
Trump just dropped the part of his lawsuit against the BBC where he claimed it damaged his business because he would have to expose what his business is. The Trump regime a way more corrupt than anything currently seen in Europe. He currently attempting to steal Greenland so he can strip it of mineral assets for fucks sack. No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Only Trump and Putin. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo
- nalekberov 2mo ago
  [flagged]
- fragmede 2mo ago
  > No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Isn't that that basically the history of Europe? A short French or German or English or Roman dude starting a war for personal gain?
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    Not recently though. Unless you count Putin.
  - Lio 2mo ago
    That's the history of every country and every empire, not just Europe. Is that the standard we're holding Trump to though? Do you really think it's OK for him to invade other countries for personal enrichment because historic tyrants also did the same?

by sneak 2mo ago

LastTrain 2mo ago

Nah, it’s worse now than ever.

jacquesm 2mo ago

You're right, just the other day our MP lined his pockets to the tune of a couple of billion, pumped his shitcoin, tipped off his friends about about the stock market movements he was going to cause, sent a couple of good deals to his kids and threatened war on a couple of countries just to please his buddies. And that's just the last couple of months... /s

FireBeyond 2mo ago
Oh, and will sell you access to his market-moving tweets for $100K a month, so you know and can get your stock trades set before the plebes do.

FireBeyond 2mo ago

Meanwhile the President sits in the Oval Office and says, in a televised interview, with absolutely no shame, that all of his kids and family are insider trading, all the time.

ffsm8 2mo ago
Meanwhile in Germany insider trading is completely legal for politicians. Well, not insider trading - but it's definition supposedly doesn't extend beyond internal business information. (At least that's what people keep telling me, im not a lawyer)
- dubbel 2mo ago
  Insider trading is it course not legal for politicians in Germany, as you could have found out without being a lawyer. That being said, transparency/reporting duties for members of parliament/ministers can and should definitely be improved.
  - ffsm8 2mo ago
    The point was that the definition of insider trading does not extend to politicians buying/selling from their "insider knowledge" as it's not internal business knowledge. Hence it is legal (in Germany) for politicians to buy/sell right before passing laws which influence the valuation of companies. Which I may add: you could've easily found out yourself too if you looked up what I wrote.
    - phatfish 2mo ago
      Which laws get passed under complete secrecy that politicians can trade based on? They are usually debated for months/years. Even if something is rushed through fast (like during COVID?) it is public knowledge. The issue in America is the president has more power to act unilaterally (maybe to address his/her own interests, maybe not) than any European politician.
    - lxgr 2mo ago
      > Hence it is legal (in Germany) for politicians to buy/sell right before passing laws which influence the valuation of companies. Are you sure about that? European legal theory for insider trading implicitly covers more cases than the US without needing to explicitly enumerate them as far as I understand (in a nutshell, trading on insider information is illegal regardless of the source or whether any fiduciary duty was breached), and I'd be surprised if this case were not covered.

Lio 2mo ago

Trump just dropped the part of his lawsuit against the BBC where he claimed it damaged his business because he would have to expose what his business is. The Trump regime a way more corrupt than anything currently seen in Europe. He currently attempting to steal Greenland so he can strip it of mineral assets for fucks sack. No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Only Trump and Putin. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly5wyynv9zo

nalekberov 2mo ago
[flagged]
fragmede 2mo ago
> No politician in Europe is starting wars for personal gain. Isn't that that basically the history of Europe? A short French or German or English or Roman dude starting a war for personal gain?
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Not recently though. Unless you count Putin.
- Lio 2mo ago
  That's the history of every country and every empire, not just Europe. Is that the standard we're holding Trump to though? Do you really think it's OK for him to invade other countries for personal enrichment because historic tyrants also did the same?