You must log in or register to comment.

kiddestructo t1_j04tw6t wrote

Hopefully for the last time, obligatory FUCK TOOMEY!!!


cpr4life8 OP t1_j04tzof wrote

Say it louder, it's a big state!


GraffitiTavern t1_j05b0u3 wrote

we need a 'FUCK TOOMEY' translated into every dialect in the state


jas98mac t1_j05jif7 wrote

Toomey’s a total frickin’ jagoff. Yinz can quote me.


IamSauerKraut t1_j07cdui wrote

We already said it when we elected Fetterman. But with him killing the bill for now, he gets to help his foreign pals hide their ill-gotten gains in the US. No other reason for him blocking it as he did.


thisoldbroad t1_j05bvut wrote

Of course, he did. He spent years working in finance and investments in Japan. He probably has $$ stashed all over the world.


RightfulChaos t1_j054ecq wrote

Sounds like he's money laundering to me


spicynuggies t1_j0591xb wrote

What would you expect from a former Wall Street banker turned Senator


cpr4life8 OP t1_j04t8wj wrote

This asshat can't be gone soon enough.


Matt-33-205 t1_j04yy1p wrote

I'm probably one of the few people on this sub-reddit who is not a left-wing progressive, but I can't stand Pat Toomey. He is a piece of shit.


Tacotek t1_j055fuq wrote

This is probably the only time we'll agree on something. But I'm glad we share this common ground. Dood is human junk.


drewbaccaAWD t1_j05qkwe wrote

I'm only left-leaning because the GOP took a hard turn off the cliff for Trump.

Also find that Toomey is a POS.


Sonnescheint t1_j06b6o9 wrote

Friendly reminder that Democrats are also right wing; left-leaning and left of center in general is Socialism or Communism, whereas Capitalism is right wing. So unless you are socialist, you would still be right wing, just not far right! Have a great day and Fuck Pat Toomey


Matt-33-205 t1_j06oi2n wrote

I'm one of those dirty libertarians who both democrats and republicans love to hate.

I think government is largely and inherently inefficient and corrupt, so I strongly believe they should stay in their lane and stick to the 18 enumerated powers limited to the federal government in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.

I also don't care who you marry, what drugs do you want to use, if own an AR15, or if you want to have an abortion. I believe in economic freedom and social freedom. I know, that makes me some kind of radical I guess...


Sonnescheint t1_j07jk5l wrote

No one asked or cares


Matt-33-205 t1_j07n3xr wrote

Haha, likewise, I couldn't care less what you think. You were the one who replied to me first bro. You poor socialists are so fragile...


Matt-33-205 t1_j077kod wrote

The downvotes are amusing, but predictable. Engage in some conversation, show me where I'm wrong


steelceasar t1_j07vzh5 wrote

I'll bite. Libertarianism is a pathetic joke. Libertarians in the United States are either Republican shills who like "both-siding" Democrats. Or they don't understand reality because they grew up privileged and have a false sense of how hereditary wealth is a massive advantage over those without it.


Matt-33-205 t1_j089lfg wrote

I'm neither of those. There are people out there who still believe in individual freedom and liberty, I am one of those people. I know that's an unpopular and rare perspective on reddit, but we exist bro.


steelceasar t1_j08arbk wrote

>individual freedom and liberty

So if the government stopped regulating things the free market would allow you to have these? You think your AR-15 is going to prevent corporations and the ultra wealthy from screwing you over in pursuit of profit? It's not that it's "unpopular or reddit" it's that it's naive to point of laughable.


Matt-33-205 t1_j08bu0u wrote

Ironic, what's so naive to the point that it's laughable are those people who believe in socialism and massive government.

I didn't say there should be no government regulation, I said government should be limited. The ultra wealthy corporations and individuals you rail against, are you aware that they use government to enrich themselves even further? Rich donors control both parties, don't fool yourself into believing far left politicians have your best interests at heart. They don't.


steelceasar t1_j08cx1h wrote

>The ultra wealthy corporations and individuals you rail against, are you aware that they use government to enrich themselves even further?

So cut out the middleman right? Might as well just let them openly enrich themselves without that pesky government trying to interfere.


Matt-33-205 t1_j08gw05 wrote

This back-and-forth doesn't seem productive. You keep creating a straw man argument, an argument that I am not making. Some government regulation is necessary, I am not an anarchist, but I am a realist.


steelceasar t1_j08hqjh wrote

You were the one complaining about all the downvotes and asking for a discussion. Here is a recent example of why Democrats (while far from perfect) are a better choice when it comes to dark money and campaign finance reform than Republicans.

This is not a both sides are bad issue when you look at the actual evidence.


maharg79 t1_j06nvpe wrote

Me too, I was team John Kaisch in 2016, since then things have gone off a fucking cliff, people like Kaisch and Romney are essentially democrats by the standards of just 6 years later.


Matt-33-205 t1_j07qjd9 wrote

I think Kaisch and Mitt Romney have pretty much always been democrats with an R after their names. They are just more traditional democrats, they aren't the far left extremists that get all the attention in the modern Democrat party


Electr_O_Purist t1_j05h177 wrote

Republicans love money laundering. They elected a professional to the VP’s office in 2000, and a freelance international money launderer for president in ‘16.


billfriedman9987 t1_j07d24l wrote

Democrats do too.. FTX


Electr_O_Purist t1_j07ezx9 wrote

Sorry, what office was that turd elected to? Have his donations uncovered a mAsSiVe cOnSpIrAcY that everyone knew he was ripping people off? Trump literally hired Paul Manafort who was under investigation for being in debt up to his eyeballs to Russian mobsters, and everyone knew it.


billfriedman9987 t1_j07fk42 wrote

I’m saying that it happens on both sides. For example, SBF donated millions to the Democratic Party and is now under arrest. Both sides are corrupt.


Electr_O_Purist t1_j07gfef wrote

SBF is not an elected official, nor is he someone who has run for office, your argument is invalid and “both sides”-ism is pathetic as fuck. You can’t make a point suggesting that corruption can exist within the left and then suggest that it’s equivalent to the fact that the right is corruption incarnate.


billfriedman9987 t1_j07gotg wrote

You are missing the point. That is now the money was laundered. I know he didn’t run for office, but he illegally funded those who were.


Atrocious_1 t1_j07tyh9 wrote

He funded republicans. Also who cares about crypto, you tech nerds got your unregulated free market, you should enjoy it


billfriedman9987 t1_j07uvau wrote

He funded both, you are right, but FAR more for the democratic candidates. I do not care about Crypto, but this was the means to launder large amounts of money and then the rug was pulled and people lost everything.


Atrocious_1 t1_j07v2ej wrote

Again, you got your unregulated, decentralized market. Enjoy what you've sown


steelceasar t1_j07v5xx wrote

Not only did he fund Republicans but unlike his contributions to Democrats, those contributions were made explicitly through dark money groups to create the appearance that he was a supporter of Democrats. His only real motivation was to make it easier to rip off people in his crypto ponzi scheme.



billfriedman9987 t1_j07wq9a wrote

>The complaint by CREW quotes an interview with Bankman-Fried, who is known as SBF, that suggests he donated up to $37 million or more to GOP-linked campaign efforts in a manner that avoided legally required public disclosure of those contributions.

Most of Bankman-Fried’s publicly disclosed campaign contributions, which totaled nearly $40 million in the 20222 election cycle, went toward Democrats, FEC records show.

But FTX donated $1 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The source of that contribution, according to the filing, is labeled as being West Realm Shires Services, the trading name for FTX.

West Realm Shires Services also contributed $750,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC that backs Republicans running for House seats and supported by the House Republican leadership.


That's a good article and as I said money is going to both parties, but I wasn't aware it was so close.. Looks like just a touch more went to democrats, but still both at ~$40m.

We need to get big money out of politics.


defusted t1_j0574f2 wrote

Just getting your last licks in aren't you, ya piece of shit.


fallser t1_j05et44 wrote

He’s a dickhead, not that he needed to remind us again.


ZappaZoo t1_j06arbs wrote

Getting the bill passed is the hard part. Tweaking it later if something needs adjusted is easy. Some people will use any excuse to block a bill that would benefit the country just because a president of the wrong flavor would sign it.


PencilTucky t1_j0520i0 wrote

It’s kinda hard to legislate against grifters when the people who own you are the grifters. I’m glad this puppet only has a couple weeks left.


Opinionsare t1_j06lt36 wrote

Toomey haters, I want to brighten your day: Fedderman is only a few weeks away!


goplantagarden t1_j054eov wrote

Toomey is a douche canoe who can't stop loving on Trump.

Edit: I don't doubt the old guard Republicans like Toomey have nothing but disdain for someone as crass as Trump. But Toomey never stopped supporting Trump era policies with his votes, or cowardly abstained instead of doing the right thing. He might as well buy the hat and go full MAGA.


PirinTablets13 t1_j056e40 wrote

That’s not even his schtick. Pat Toomey cares about Pat Toomey and his corporate interests above all.


melisma48 t1_j05jno7 wrote

Toomey's ONLY redeeming feature is that he is NOT a fan of tfg.


trxrider500 t1_j054y8j wrote

I vote dem all the time, but if this is true:

“the veteran lawmaker objected to the legislation being tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act — a must-pass bill — without any hearings.”

I agree with his blocking of it. Packing unrelated amendments and provisions into defense spending authorization is shady af, especially for banking. Anything that changes the banking system should have open hearings.

Ps - will also be glad when Toomey is gone, but I agree with him blocking this.


thesonofdarwin t1_j0571u7 wrote

Would you be shocked to learn Toomey has sponsored or co-sponsored unrelated bills/amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act almost every time? I was able to find them all the way back to 2012, which I believe is the first year he'd have been able to vote on it. This isn't about him holding firm, consistent standards, despite what he may say.


trxrider500 t1_j05758c wrote

Nope, I wouldn’t be shocked at all. The guy is a scumbag and I’ll be happy when he’s out of the Senate, however, this particular objection is legitimate.


poopfeast t1_j05dgqq wrote

Toomey votes with his own self interest. His objection isn’t legitimate, it’s convenient. Chances are if he voted against it, this would have affected him and his own finances personally.


ktappe t1_j05pwd4 wrote

It’s hypocritical as fuck. You don’t get to support him doing the right thing when he’s been doing the exact same wrong thing for the past 12 years.


raunchyfartbomb t1_j055tma wrote

Unfortunately it’s not just defense spending that gets these riders. Most bills do, and it’s awful.

All bills should state a scope, and anything outside of it should be in a different bill. If that means voting on 200+ additional bills, so be it. Or even package those into a ‘cleanup’ bill to take care of any miscellaneous items that don’t fit cleanly elsewhere.


trxrider500 t1_j0565b4 wrote

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Packing a bunch of extra crap into a must pass bill without any hearings or discovery phase is BS. It’s one of the biggest things contributing to corruption at the federal level.


ktappe t1_j05pz5t wrote

Money laundering is one of the biggest things contributing to corruption at the federal level. And he just voted to not stop money laundering.


cpr4life8 OP t1_j055kaf wrote

Right, because we should definitely have lengthy hearings on (checks notes) money laundering.


trxrider500 t1_j055vot wrote

There’s a lot that can be put under the umbrella term of “money laundering” wouldn’t you want a hearing or two too get an idea of exactly what the law is meant to target?

Legit question, what’s wrong with one or two hearings to find out what this new law is supposed to cover that existing laws on the books already don’t?


PirinTablets13 t1_j057a6x wrote

If you read the text of the existing anti-money laundering regulations, you will see that this pretty clearly closes off a loophole that allows certain fiduciaries to circumvent the due diligence requirements that banks are subject to follow.


cpr4life8 OP t1_j056o2p wrote

"While there is no record of Senate sessions on the bill, advocates say the key issues over the roles of enablers, including financial advisors and others who set up trusts and other conduits to take in shadowy money, has been debated for decades.

The alarm over enablers — or go-betweens — in moving the money has led to “thousands of hours of congressional discussions,” said Nate Sibley, a research fellow with the Hudson Institute’s Kleptocracy Initiative.

He said the troubling concerns about people who help kleptocrats and others secretly plow their money into the US dates as far back as 9/11, but the most recent surge to pass reforms was triggered by explosive reporting in the Washington Post and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists which showed how the U.S. has increasingly become one of the world’s foremost havens for dirty dollars."

It's been discussed.


Redlar t1_j07ny4a wrote

>the U.S. has increasingly become one of the world’s foremost havens for dirty dollars."

Looks like we're taking over for the UK

The UK made it so the rich (only non-citizens iirc) have to prove their assets have not been bought with ill-gotten gains.

They've had a laundered money problem for quite a while and had turned a blind eye because, of course, it was good for business


trxrider500 t1_j0576k0 wrote

”advocates say”

Yeah, I bet they do.


cpr4life8 OP t1_j057dm2 wrote

Well at least we know we can trust the party that tried to overthrow the fucking government. Jfc dude, get real. This is a real problem that has been a problem for decades and has been discussed for decades and there has been no action. And fuck head Toomey just shit all over it knowing that the GOP is taking control of the house.


ktappe t1_j05q7hh wrote

Maybe you could read the bill for yourself? Stop criticizing advocates without knowing what they actually are advocating for.


ktappe t1_j05q2m6 wrote

You’re assuming hearings are the only way to learn who the bill targets. Or maybe, hear me out on this, he could fucking read it for himself?


Excelius t1_j06qevi wrote

The devil is in the details.

Just because you declare a piece of legislation is anti-something-bad, doesn't mean it gets a pass from basic scrutiny.


cpr4life8 OP t1_j06qsd3 wrote

It's been scrutinized for decades and no one has done a thing about it. Now they tried and Toomey tanked it.


drewbaccaAWD t1_j05r278 wrote

I agree in spirit.

But the sad reality is that unrelated packaged bills and reconciliation on budget bills is about the only way to get anything done so long as they continue to allow the filibuster to be a tool of near endless opposition.

He blocked this but what did he offer up in return?


LowNo5584 t1_j056320 wrote

That happens often, for this exact reason. The media will pick out one item in, what would have been an otherwise, phenomenal bill and roast the no voters over it. In this case, a provision for investigating money laundering was inserted into the NDAA bill. If you wasn't a money laundering law, write a stand alone bill.


BirdMan7187 t1_j06j7fa wrote

One big “screw you guys, I’m going home”


JustVern t1_j06ux29 wrote

What a subtle way of saying, ‘I’m involved with global money laundering.’



B0MBOY t1_j072fh0 wrote

I love how we all hate toomey now regardless of party or political beliefs.


Pa17325 t1_j072w5d wrote

One last "fuck you" before he retires


Dunn_or_what t1_j078ahc wrote

Toomy and the other bought senators is the reason John Fetterman won the election.


drunkmonkey176 t1_j07juja wrote

Greed Over People. Trash like this seriously needs to get what's comin to them.


One_Awareness6631 t1_j07ofyr wrote

Pat Toomey doing the most on his way out of Senate. So glad he'll be gone soon.


crazypants9 t1_j08tnk9 wrote

He has his next gig lined up. GOP is a criminal enterprise. If you don’t get it by now, you never will. He is a worthless Tea Bag stooge.


crazypants9 t1_j08yyh7 wrote

Stooge is stooge is stooge. What a pathetic excuse of a human.


Guntcher1423 t1_j098tqz wrote

He has to pay for his retirement fund somehow. Give the guy a break!


MartialBob t1_j0s6a2j wrote

I love it when Republicans vote against literally anything because "it gives regulators too much power". Do they have any other lines?


Ellis4Life t1_j06l1hn wrote

“Mr. Toomey declined an interview request through his staff, but a top Republican aide on the Banking Committee said the veteran lawmaker objected to the legislation being tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act — a must-pass bill — without any hearings.”

Why is this a thing? Why can’t we just have smaller, more focused bills instead of lumping them into giant ones? Is Congress afraid they’d have to work harder or something?


hashtagbob60 t1_j07b8ak wrote you expected anything more????


cpr4life8 OP t1_j07cg67 wrote

My only expectation of Toomey is that he will always do whatever is in his own best interest.


Moxy79 t1_j06ponb wrote

Devils advovacate... There is a huge problem with this act that the American Bar Association pointed out. This act would force Lawyers to report attourney-client privileged and protected client information to the government.

Which on its face is like "so what?" but one day could effect you, your buisnesses etc

Toomey is an ass but I kind of agree that this Act should have been modified to protect attourney clien privalage


cpr4life8 OP t1_j06qchq wrote

Lawyers are often enablers of money laundering and other shady deals to hide money. Of course they're opposed to this.


IndependentCode8743 t1_j07l0ck wrote

"Mr. Toomey declined an interview request through his staff, but a top Republican aide on the Banking Committee said the veteran lawmaker objected to the legislation being tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act — a must-pass bill — without any hearings."

I'm never a fan of when they tuck shit like this in bills that have to be passed, so I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Toomey on this one (assuming what is quoted from the article is true).


cpr4life8 OP t1_j07l70c wrote

Except he's a fucking hypocrite because he's done this himself. He's not making some Grand gesture here he's being a fucking hypocrite because he doesn't want this to go through.


IndependentCode8743 t1_j08s224 wrote

I don't care which side does it, I hate it. These bills should stand on their own.


cpr4life8 OP t1_j08shot wrote

Well keep wishing on a fucking star while the rest of us live in reality and realize this is how it works and it's never going to change so it's fine to call somebody out for being a fucking hypocrite for stating his reason for objecting to something is completely invalid because it's something that he has done countless times himself.


Money-Expression-329 t1_j0702a9 wrote

It's easy to lampoon a headline without knowing what was in the bill Yeah it sounds good on the surface but what does it really say? Learn the facts before you vilify someone


Alfa505 t1_j06dx3j wrote

“National Defense Authorization Act — a must-pass bill — without any hearings.”

Stop porking up bills, and without review or committee hearings? Be serious People