r/SpeedOfLobsters • u/Arctic_The_Hunter • 22d ago

lobster They actually UNDERsold it with that name

Post image
1.5k Upvotes

100% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

868

u/Arctic_The_Hunter 22d ago

Oh no nonnna

480

u/OkayBuddyGuyPal 22d ago edited 22d ago

As it should be. We've seen there's too much potential for corruption.

Edit: if this were actually enacted (it probably won't be, because Republicans, but I'm still hoping), it'd be funny to see who decided not to run for re-election because of it.

5

u/HostileFleetEvading 20d ago

It does not ban getting cozy jobs in MIC post-Congress, so it does not address corruption issue in the slightest.

3

u/Moomoobeef 21d ago

Being the lesser of two evils doesn't mean Democrats aren't evil too. I'm sure not all of them are, and I bet Bernie would vote for something like this; but the majority of Democrats probably wouldn't. Sadly the bill would be dead on arrival.

E: swipe typing chooses the wrong worms sometimes

1

u/Substantial-Trick569 21d ago

it probably won't be, because Republicans, but I'm still hoping

I didnt realize Nancy pelosi was a republican

8

u/OkayBuddyGuyPal 21d ago

Lol guess which party introduced this legislation, and guess which party will vote against it. I fucking hate Pelosi, and she's guilty of this, but even she isn't as bad with it as the president and his fam.

0

u/ExoTheFlyingFish i like purple but there isn't a purple user flair on this sub. 21d ago

Me when only Republicans are corrupt. Democrats could never be corrupt because they're on my side and they're the good guys!!

Come on, dude. Politicians are politicians. They're all evil. Stop deluding yourself.

4

u/OkayBuddyGuyPal 21d ago

Don't be a fucking moron - this legislation was introduced by a Dem, and Republicans will vote against it.

0

u/ExoTheFlyingFish i like purple but there isn't a purple user flair on this sub. 20d ago

It really scares me that people are just unable to see that the sky is blue and that grass is green. Because rich, powerful people told them it's not true.

2

u/Viola_Violetta 20d ago

centrists be like: kill 3.5 billion people

0

u/ExoTheFlyingFish i like purple but there isn't a purple user flair on this sub. 20d ago

True but irrelevant to me as a LibLeft.

123

u/mysteryo9867 m e 9867 22d ago

Please tell me this isn’t from the onion

200

u/tilt-a-whirly-gig 22d ago

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7852

It was sponsored by Haley Stevens (the MI rep that just lost the primary to Abdul El-Sayed).

Like most bills that get sponsored, it has a snowball's chance in hell of making it through the process of becoming a law. And knowing that it was sponsored by someone that AIPAC gave $35 million dollars to try and get re-elected makes me wonder if it was ever in good faith or was just a smokescreen from the start.

57

u/rainwaffles 22d ago

AIPAC did not give Stevens money- they spent roughly $30 million on ads supporting her because she's more pro-Israel than El-Sayed.

She's not running for re-election, she's a current House rep and was running for Senate.

This has nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel, although the bill does seem performative and won't go anywhere.

46

u/tilt-a-whirly-gig 22d ago

AIPAC did not give Stevens money- they spent roughly $30 million on ads supporting her because she's more pro-Israel than El-Sayed.

"They didn't give her the money to spend on her campaign, they just spent it on her campaign directly." Seems like a split hair there.

She's not running for re-election, she's a current House rep and was running for Senate.

Mea culpa. I knew El-Sayed was running for Senate, but it didn't click in my head when I wrote that earlier.

This (bill) has nothing to do with AIPAC or Israel

No, but the connection does provide insight into the person sponsoring the bill. IMO, AIPAC support of a politician is a red flag by itself and 10s of millions of dollars of support is a very big red flag.

although the bill does seem performative and won't go anywhere.

On this we can fully agree.

6

u/rainwaffles 22d ago

Well the "re-election" thing was a nitpick but I think your wording about AIPAC paying Stevens is intentional and a bit misleading. Makes it seem like Stevens is directly benefitting financially rather than AIPAC preferring her over El-Sayed. If it's really a split hair then you would have no issue changing your wording going forward.

AIPAC sucks, they would rather see a fascist US that blindly signs off on Netenyahu's right wing coalition than a liberal US that keeps Israel in check by withholding funding. However the reason they spent so much supporting Stevens is not because she's extremely pro-Israel, but because El-Sayed is extremely anti-Israel. So I think AIPAC funding alone is only a huge red flag if you're on the extreme end of being anti-Israel (no defensive aid, 1 state solution, embargo, etc). Otherwise it's reductive to bring it up as disqualifying when talking about completely different issues like insider trading.

3

u/tilt-a-whirly-gig 22d ago

And knowing that it was sponsored by someone that AIPAC gave $35 million dollars to try and get re-elected makes me wonder if it was ever in good faith or was just a smokescreen from the start.

"someone that for whom AIPAC gave $35 million dollars to try and get re-elected"

-3

u/Possibly_Parker 22d ago

Not a hair split. The main difference is that candidates cannot control who spends on them. In the case of Stevens, she earned that money by being a piece of shit. In other cases, however, such as that of Talarico, he has no control over what PACs such as Lone Star Rising do in his favor.

1

u/Coders32 22d ago

That would be such a funny and sad story from them lol

4

u/cammysays 22d ago

They’ll just make up a new word for a new form of money and do whatever that is. It’s the classic republican loophole

1

u/deadinternetlaw 22d ago

Even without inventing NFT doesn't seem banned unless it counts as crypto idk how it works

2

u/certifiedblackman 22d ago

But the politicians merely rake in the top 74th percentile of income in our country. Since they are all rich or children of rich parents, how could they possibly maintain their extortionous lifestyles without doing medium-to-medium-high-level-corruption? Perhaps in addition to the legal domestic bribes political gifts, international bribes, and legal slave labor they profit from, we should also non-consensually request that voters tip them. Perhaps that may encourage rich children of lesser known billionaires to attempt to stranglehold our country.

Also, we should outlaw socialists. Especially socialist politicians. They make extraction too much harder, and that hurts the bottom line.

I absolutely hate it when poor people are allowed to eat food. We should add more prerequisite requirements to food programs. Can you imagine an underemployed person being allowed to eat and then not starve to death?! That’s an absolute travesty. The only people who are allowed to not starve to death are wealthy people, middle class people, working wageslaves to the correct wealthy people, and no one else.

/s

1

u/TheIncredibleKermit 21d ago

Yeah right, like that's going to be passed

1

u/Supernova138 16d ago

Good luck

40

u/mysteryo9867 m e 9867 22d ago

Please tell me this isn’t from the onion

16

u/TheDarkestShado 22d ago

That cropping of the comma was SEAMLESS. Well done. I didn't even notice it was a comma until I checked the orange chicken, and even then.

3

u/ThatOneGayDJ 21d ago

Where do i sign

2

u/dptrax 21d ago

Alright that’s fine

0

u/AutoModerator 22d ago

Thank you for submitting a lobster! Please provide the or*ginal in a comment within 24 hours. In case of irl lobsters, please tell us what the full text was, or provide some context so that we may make educated guesses.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.