430
Of course she doesn't care now, she's only a few years away from retiring or dying on the job anyways
... and has her coffers more than filled 👍
She's really going to get hers and then pull up the ladder behind her, eh? What a boomer.
She's actually too old to be a boomer. Pelosi is silent generation.
No, no, the correct meaning of "boomer" apparently is "anyone older than me that I don't like"
Attempting to explain anything meaningful by referencing generational cohorts is a lazy, useless pastime anyway. It has about as much intellectual rigor and explanatory power as astrology or the theory of humours.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Retire? Oh you're funny.
She is 100% planning on dying in office. She's obviously one those people who are obsessed with leaving a "legacy". In her mind she's going to be remember as the first female member of the House and a groundbreaking feminist who made way for others, etc.
Which would have probably stuck if she'd retired a decade ago. Now she's going to remembered as a greedy ghoul who intentionally sabotaged other politicians and held back society to enrich herself. This is too little, too late.
Yea, I have nothing but disdain for Dianne Feinstein who did great things like 300 years ago and then held on to her position so long that it all got ruined and thrown away.
Feinstein never did anything significant.
RBG did the same thing.
RBG actually did some good, unlike Feinstein. She hung on too long, but it was for honorable reasons, she just didn't live long enough for the benefits to materlialize.
a groundbreaking feminist who made way for others
Ah, right, he "woman CEO" 1970s bourgeois feminist trope. But experience has now demonstrated that here's no difference between a male and a female corrupt weasel. Capitalists are still capitalists, and their weasel mouthpieces are still weasels.
This is a huge about-face by her. Why couldn't she have done this when she was still in power?
Pulling the ladder up behind you and boomer shit, name a more iconic duo.
load more comments
(1 replies)
She supported it in 2022: https://www.willmarradio.com/news/politics/pelosis-support-of-bill-banning-congressional-stock-trading-clears-path-forward/article_610170a0-6df6-5a36-b99a-f986756545e2.html
And in 2019: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/473281-house-passes-bill-to-explicitly-ban-insider-trading/
And in 2012: https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-on-senate-passage-of-stock-act
But yeah she made money on stock trades, and famously did not support it in 2021. So there’s that. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-opposes-banning-stock-buys-by-congress-members.html
She stopped supporting it when it had a real chance of passing. Performative progressivism is the Democrat way.
Nah it looks like she was for banning trades using insider trading, and against banning Congress members and their spouses from trading stocks.
If your husband/wife's entire career is trading stocks I highly doubt you'd be for such. It's hypocritical that she would be for it now though. She should have kept her stance that she had in that 2012 article, that increasing scrutiny and verifying their trades should be done to make sure no inside information was used.
Nuance is always appreciated
https://www.quiverquant.com/congresstrading/politician/Nancy%20Pelosi-P000197
look at her trading history and answer that yourself
"Got Mine, Fuck You."
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah I was gonna say, she's 85 and has insider traded her way to a net worth of ~$250 million. No wonder she's like yeah fuck it lol.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Clearly Nancy doesn't believe in a word that she's saying. It doesn't take decades to figure out that you're getting rich because you have insider knowledge. Which means she knows there's no chance the legislation would pass, and she's just grandstanding, and hey that's better than nothing, so we can give her a golf clap.
It's cynical, dishonest, manipulative, and completely unproductive.
Based on that alone I completely believe that Nancy Pelosi did the math and realized that Democrats could argue for this out loud maybe even vote for it but there's no chance that it'll ever happen so it's a great chance for her to actually do politics with the voters which I thought she had considered beneath her.
That's like Trump saying they should ban pedophilia now that he can't get it up anymore.
You don't think he'd down a whole case of coke and as many male "enhancement" pills as he can‽
People have actually died from too many enhancement pills...
She already made enough money she can drop it in a fund and let it grow. Not going to affect her.
Typical boomer, pulling the ladder up behind her
Boomer. lol no. Words do have meaning and you’re using that word wrong. She predates the baby boomers, that’s how fucking old she is
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Cool. Also, fuck Nacy Pelosi.
She's fucking 85. It's not like it will fuck up her retirement plan or something.
That's probably the only way to move things forward though. Implement rules that only affect future politicians. Let the current generation have their cake. We can gradually transition to something more sane as they get replaced.
I loathe agreeing with that, but when a political system is so self-serving, that's the only way.
She's following the Feinstein Retirement Plan.
lol, she already made her money. I agree with removing it, but that’s a very boomer way of seeing…. “I’ve got mine, so fuck you”.
By saying she supports it, she knows trump will block it
This is the on-brandest
Twist: It is actually a total ban on all stock trading thus eliminating stock markets forever.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, she can go F' herself here. She blocked it last time progressive brought this up and this just more performatory BS from disingenuous Democratic leadership.
I bet she tells her undertaker she's for term-limits.
Well, there goes the Nancy ETF.
I don't trust these kinds of bills because voters don't know enough to have a say.
Politicians will announce policy MONTHS in advance. People don't care because CNN or whatever didn't make it consumable. And then politicians make moves on the stock market. And then people accuse them of insider trading.
The last few times Pelosi has went viral, the policies were hashed out ad nauseum and even made headlines well in advance. Way before she made her moves.
People have no idea what's going on and then a bill like this appears?
Edit: the amount of people who take this further is rare. It's all about "insider trading." But what about the things they actually do to profit off governance?
load more comments
(2 replies)
To everyone here dismissing this and saying “too little too late..”
What are republicans doing or saying that comes even close to this?
Like sure this is bullshit, but can anyone say when republicans even came close to the lowest fake ass shit you’d pretend this to be ?
Make it retroactive to Trumps first term and see how much she supports it.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
430 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25084 readers
2898 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS