The de-facto leader of the Republican party is running blatant crypto scams from the White House and his supporters cheer him on.

I don't know where the Overton Window is today, but it's a long way from Jimmy Carter's peanut farm.

Imagine reading that pre 2008 (creation of bitcoin) — what kind of crypto scam could president run?!

It's a big cult, and you ain't in it.

> Jimmy Carter's peanut farm

Ironically, somewhere I was walking around on Sunday. Pretty place.

It's authored by a Republican congressman, and is a bipartisan flop, with only 100 total reps sponsoring. It's true that of those few who are sponsoring there are more Democrats, but overall most Democrats oppose which is also enough to block the bill, same as Republicans.

Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5106

It also blocks stock trading entirely for congressmen, which is dramatically different from what gp was suggesting.

Blocking it outright is probably more than what I want. I think if they can only invest in things like S&P500 funds that would suffice for me. Force them to invest more broadly in a way that it cannot interfere with the market.

80 Democratic cosponsors out of 213 Democratic representatives.

The bill is sponsored by 37% of Democrats

22 Republican cosponsors out of 219 Republican representativs.

The bill is sponsored by 10% of Republicans.

I think you might be jumping to conclusions by calling it a bipartisan flop. Co-sponsorship is not the same as a vote, there may be people not on the sponsorship list who would vote for the bill.

The bill was introduced 3 months ago (43 days these last three months was a government shutdown) and not enough time has passed to determine whether the bill will be a "flop" or not.

It's not a flop without a vote. I can agree with that definition. It's then not a "blocked" bill without a vote either. Right?

I'm certainly not trying to seem like I'm jumping to any conclusions. But we should like to keep our definitions uniform throughout a given paragraph. Well, at least if we aspire to call ourselves rational.

102 cosponsors is a lot, most bills have far fewer than that. Look through recent bills that have passed the House, you won't find any with that many cosponsors. This is true of both bipartisan unanimous bills (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr4423, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5348) and partisan controversial ones (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr5107, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr1949).