You must log in or register to comment.

wildkarrde23 t1_j5ulif8 wrote

Very good idea. Next should be the Hawley Act which would ban insurrectionists from holding federal office.


417sadboi t1_j5uq5wp wrote

The name is actually the 14th Amendment.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5ulzu7 wrote

I would support a bill banning insurrectionists from holding federal office. I don't really care about the name, the language is what's important.


wildkarrde23 t1_j5umh4t wrote

Oh, I agree. I was just fighting performative bullshit with performative bullshit.


Wrinklestiltskin t1_j5vkwgm wrote

Maybe the Hawley Act should prevent politicians from running for office while living in a different state. He cheats by using his sister's address in Ozark. He should not be able to represent our state when he absolutely does not reside here.


Saltpork545 t1_j5w4psv wrote

> insurrectionists

Funny, that law already exists. It's even written into the existing law that you cannot hold office post conviction.

'Someone should make it a LAW!'
They already did. Try google.

If you hold such strong beliefs you should really spend 30 seconds looking first at what already exists. Just saying.


wildkarrde23 t1_j5w7gvp wrote

You're putting so many words in my mouth, you should buy me dinner first.


Saltpork545 t1_j5wb2gl wrote

> Next should be the Hawley Act which would ban insurrectionists from holding federal office.

Your words

> shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

USC law.

You want a new law to do something an existing law already does. That's not 'putting words in your mouth'. It's pointing out your lack of knowledge.

Downvotes also don't make that less true. Sorry.
The existing law is fine.


wildkarrde23 t1_j5weriu wrote

Are you feeling OK? Have a bad day? I've been there, man. You seem to be dedicating a lot of time and energy over a cheeky comment that took me all of 30 seconds to write. If you want to go have a beer or something and chill out, let me know.


Saltpork545 t1_j60ksjv wrote

I'm feeling fine. Yesterday was actually a good day.

The problem is the circlejerk of ignorance and sometimes subreddits go full in and ask for seconds.

Your quip has a complete lack of even basic knowledge of the subject. Jan 6th was over a year ago and you've never once actually looked at federal insurrection law. It's literally a google search.

If you're going to name an insurrection law after someone wouldn't it make even a little bit of sense to actually look at insurrection law?

Oh, and I don't drink.


wildkarrde23 t1_j60te87 wrote

I'm going to share a little secret with you. I am VERY familiar with The Constitution and the standing laws on this matter. I was doing this whole thing where Hawley was being a disingenious troll, so I did some light trolling back. I didnt think this kind of thread needed a discussion on the nuance of treason laws. Then you showed up and went all "ACKCHYUALLY" on us.

My wife is out of town so I'm home with my two kids with nothing but time to respond to your righteous indignation with more flippant bullshit. You seem like you're super upset about this and it makes me wonder what kind of life you have to have for something so miniscule to matter so much to you?
Man, I wish I had your problems.


[deleted] t1_j5ur101 wrote



lochlainn t1_j5v6lb4 wrote

Because nobody, even him, is seriously interested in cutting off their ability to put their hands in the cookie jar.

This is grandstanding. It's something the American citizen desperately needs, and that no elected official on either side of the isle has any motivation to fulfill.


Always_0421 t1_j5utoni wrote

The problem is the name is all that will keep it in the news. It might make it out of committee, but it will never pass on the floor regardless of the name.

These money grabbers will never vote against their own personal interests...I hope to be proven wrong.


sullivan80 t1_j5vmtfs wrote

Even though I am generally conservative I dislike Hawley (almost) as much as most of the liberals on this site. But this is a good thing here.

Like you I am not really a fan of the name because it makes it sound like a joke and dials up the partisanship when in reality it's not a partisan issue. Automatically makes it a non-starter for most if not every democrat and that's unfortunate.

But you are right it will never get any traction and the fact that it won't get traction just underscores how corrupt and self serving politicians generally are.

In all reality this is probably just another political stunt by this guy to generate some headlines and buzz and keep his name in the spotlight.


bobone77 t1_j5vyh6s wrote

It doesn’t even do what it claims to do. It’s like a Swiss cheese of family exemptions and carve outs for blind trusts. Completely performative, just like everything else this fascist prick does.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5vxq65 wrote

Just curious, what do you dislike about Hawley? I have heard enough from all the liberals on this sub about how horrible he his, but I haven't heard it from a conservative perspective.


sullivan80 t1_j5vzquh wrote

Well...for starters I just find his slick ivy league persona to be slimy and prototypical politician who carefully curates his positions and statements based on what is most likely to propel him up the next rung in the ladder. On that note - everyone knew he had bigger ambitions when he first ran for statewide office and still he denied/lied about it.

I don't hate all his positions, I just don't care for him as a politician because I think he is too into making waves and big splashy scenes. I believe his one and only motive is advancing his career as far as he possibly can - I just don't see him as a public servant, maybe I'm wrong. In my opinion the left hates him for much of the same reason the right so vehemently hates AOC. Yeah the positions are trash but all the talk and attention getting on top of it just makes it unbearable.

Most conservative people I know don't really seem to view him as a very useful or productive senator. But they would vote for him vs someone who will go along with Biden and the democrats.


Sad-Investigator-155 t1_j5wrngv wrote

I’m not a conservative but I agree and echo your sentiments. My problem with Josh is that he doesn’t seem to be trying to help his constituents. He rails against big tech and neoconservatism. He is always quick to trash the other side and hate on democrats but I don’t see him putting in any real work for the people of Missouri. He doesn’t seem to have a good agenda and rather seems to pursue aggressive sound bites. I think he is trying to position himself and his wife as the all American, wholesome family…a cleaned up version of Trump. It doesn’t come off as genuine at all.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5w0ss0 wrote

I never really thought about it like that, but he does seem like the other side of the coin from AOC.


Mungx t1_j5w387g wrote

Except AOC just wants to give you Healthcare and stop polluting the planet. Not extreme things at all.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5w5vv7 wrote

She is just saying those things for the publicity, exactly as many are claiming about Hawley in this thread.


Mungx t1_j5w6z61 wrote

No, there are people in govt that want better social programs and the govt to actually help people. Just because republicans don't, doesn't mean you need to project that shit on the opposite side.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5wbrs2 wrote

> Just because republicans don't

You seriously think all Republicans are bad faith? And the only ones actually interested in helping are Dems?


Mungx t1_j5wffy9 wrote

Yeah I would say 99% of Republicans don't give af about Americans at all. There's plenty of corporate dems that also don't give af as well but there are democrats that do actually care. Elizabeth Warren trying to cap interest rates on credit cards is another example. The only reason I say 99% is because I'm sure there's 1 or 2 Republicans somewhere that have a decent take on something but those people won't ever see the light of day. It's Marjorie Taylor green, Lauren boebert, and DeSantis show now. Absolute psychopaths.


Ogtrot t1_j5vn8ge wrote

Well said. Credibility lost at first sight of the title is a prime red flag for clout chasing. Simply enact change. We don't need to see which side is snickering at said change, you're all capable of it which is where we should draw the line.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5urn1y wrote

I agree. The name could have been better. I mean, Pelosi is pretty well known as the worst violator of insider trading... But I'd prefer if Hawley left room for bipartisanship instead of slapping the Dems in the face.


Mungx t1_j5w3frw wrote

Last I saw she was the 5th best trader in congress with 4 other republicans ahead of her. With Dan Crenshaw either 4th or 6th on the list.


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5uv1ln wrote

Can you link to a source that shows her being the worst violator?


turbulance4 OP t1_j5uvz65 wrote

I'm not actually trying to make that claim (although it may be true). I am claiming she is the most well known for being an inside trader. In other words, her name shows up most in news headlines and whatnot about it. She has the name recognition for this particular form of corruption.


Saltpork545 t1_j5w5k96 wrote

She does because of her husband. She gets a lot of the headlines for it but she's typically not at the top herself, her husband is.

Unusual whales is the biggest tracker of all of this and they call it the Pelosi metric for a reason, but there's plenty of Republican Congressional members who take part as well. This isn't one sided at all.

Congress members and their immediate families should not be allowed to trade while they're in office. If they need to make 150 million dollars like what the Pelosis are worth, they can retire.


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5v2q4e wrote

You literally made that claim. Read your own comment again.

Her name shows up most on alt-right blogs and propaganda sites, I'll agree to that. The left isn't obsessed with her.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5v48a3 wrote

My apologies if I typed it out poorly and you misunderstood. I did not mean to make that claim.

Are these "alt-right blogs and propaganda sites"?

Business Insider

The NY Post

The Hill

CBS News



cktk9 t1_j5v8v2p wrote

A few thoughts

  • Fuck Josh Hawley
  • Fuck Josh Hawley especially for the name of the bill - Pelosi is one of many
  • I love the concept of banning congress from owning stock
  • I am suspicious as fuck about the actual wording/intention of the bill/what else is in it

DebbieDunnbbar t1_j5xb6im wrote

>Fuck Josh Hawley especially for the name of the bill - Pelosi is one of many

Why? Yes, Pelosi is one of many politician inside traders, but she was third in line to be president and the third most powerful politician in the country (arguably second since the VP is a figurehead) for like a zillion years. Her insider trading is much more egregious than some nobody Congressman from Idaho. She had much more control over what legislation gets pushed and voted on and how it affected the market. And if there’s a politician who’s made more from insider trading than Pelosi, I’m not aware of it. She absolutely deserves her name on the bill far and above anyone else.

The name on the bill is only to point a spotlight at this stuff anyway. It never did and never will have a chance in hell of passing.


cktk9 t1_j5xcf93 wrote

It is disingenuous to portray the naming of the bill as anything other than a political swipe at the left.


DebbieDunnbbar t1_j5xdu61 wrote

Um, dude, maybe it should be political against Pelosi considering she was the second most powerful politician in the US and might be the most prolific inside trader in American history.

There’s no reality where a bill like this can pass right now regardless of how it’s named. Even if Hawley’s motives are shitty, bringing more attention to this issue is nothing but a good thing and is the only way something can ever be done about it someday.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5vd7fl wrote

> I am suspicious as fuck about the actual wording/intention of the bill/what else is in it

You can find the actual text of the bill with a simple google if you are interested in reading.


pssssn t1_j5vgpys wrote

Googling this, thought this was interesting, the bill Democrats tried to pass to do the same thing back in 2022

Actual text of current bill. Just like most contracts I don't feel like I understand this verbiage correctly enough without interpretation from someone that actually does this for a living.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5vv8lf wrote

from you first link:

> While the House leadership bill is driven by top Democrats, some notable Republicans have, in principle, supported the idea of a congressional stock ban; Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep.

So he did support it before. Unlike what a few others have implied in this thread. Like u/Lachet


Lachet t1_j5vw913 wrote

No implication; I'd heard something along those lines and thought I'd ask. The bill in the article was introduced, but never voted on. Also, the addition of "in principle" does a lot of heavy lifted in that quoted chunk.


laffingriver t1_j5vbg20 wrote

he will still vote no on it.

ps check the bill doesnt allow straw purchases through spouses and inlaws.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5vczst wrote

The text of the bill is easy to find if you google. It prevents purchases by members and spouses, and has a carve out allowing a "blind trust." Could members still get around it by going further out the family chain than spouses? Probably. But some restrictions are better than none.


laffingriver t1_j5ve0vm wrote

“blind trust” is meaningless without a definition of what that is written into the bill.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5vep91 wrote

again you can read the text, I saw a definition section when I skimmed it.


throwawayyyycuk t1_j5utlcb wrote

This is a surprisingly good thing to come from this pos, I’m kinda suspicious about it but hey, I’ll take what I can get???


Gingersnap5322 t1_j5vgdxd wrote

Don’t let it fool you, Andrew Tate did the same thing, spout crazy bullshit, go dark, do something good to win back people, wash and repeat


Lachet t1_j5v1t4p wrote

Didn't he already vote against a previous bill that would have done the exact same thing?


laffingriver t1_j5wogz9 wrote

way i heard it was he didnt fully support other versions because it banned members, immediate family/spouses and secondary relatives.

this bill doesnt say anything about secondary family members.

so he could still have his brother in law trade on whatever.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5zbgaw wrote

Where did you hear that from?


laffingriver t1_j5zuhc0 wrote

i think it was him speaking to a media scrum at the capitol or maybe on the floor in response to the previous bill. it may have been someone at his office when i called about it. but i remember him talking about how he felt a secondary family member ban was going to far. ill see of i can find it but i have a life to live too.

i read his bill from the link provided by the hill and it says only immediate family members.

it doesnt specify any rules regarding a blind trust other than referencing another law, which is likely full of loopholes and that will need to be addressed too.

the point being this is a gesture in bad faith that im sure a lot of americans would support but its dead on arrival because he and other members make too much money off it, or their wall street friends who make a percentage on the trades wont make campaign donations. cant let that well dry up.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5zvc7q wrote

Is it better to have some restrictions (with possible loopholes), or no restrictions?


laffingriver t1_j60315u wrote

if the restriction has loopholes written into the law by the peopleset to benefit from the loophole is it really a restriction?

if the law is in place but has no teeth, is it worth the paper its written on?

congressional corruption is bigger than their abilities to trade stocks. so the solution needs to be bigger than that.

and again this bill is performative bs, everyone sees it, he is clearly trolling, its going nowhere so why even take it seriously?


turbulance4 OP t1_j607hih wrote

Allowing the congress person to personally do the inside trading vs forcing the to recruit their family does add some friction to the corruption.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5zwglz wrote

I understand the issue you getting at, but I also see the other perspective. For example, if my dad became a senator I'd def feel a little strange that I now was barred from interacting with the stock market.


Low_Tourist t1_j5vkiak wrote

There's already another bipartisan bill regarding this that's failed twice and has been introduced for a 3rd time. Joshy boy is just looking for some pub.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5vkwxf wrote

I'd show my support for either. If Hawley can get it to a vote, more power to him. If whoever sponsored the one you mention can, more power to them too.


NotBatman81 t1_j5zvkoe wrote

That's fine, because "pub" is needed to get Congress to vote against their unethical self interests. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5ujidj wrote

I know everyone hates this guy here. But can we set aside that hate long enough to support this bill?


exhusband2bears t1_j5uldxx wrote

Nope. He's trolling.

I'm all for a similar bill, so long as it's: a) written by a legislator who didn't cheer on the insurrection, and b) not some kind of bad right-wing meme bullshit.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5ulklb wrote

The person who wrote the bill is more important than a good bill passing?


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5uv4wr wrote

It won't pass, every Republican would vote against it.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5uviw8 wrote

I don't understand, it is written and proposed by a Republican and you think the Reps are the problem? Do you expect the Dems to be in favor of this bill written by Reps?


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5v3pue wrote

I don't expect Republicans to write a bill that isn't inherently more of a problem than what they are claiming to solve.

But hey, maybe this will be the time Hawley isn't a corrupt and traitorous asshole grandstanding for Trump fans and he actually makes a decent bill. Looking at the other crap he's sponsored I doubt it. The fact he sponsored the same thing last year and no one cared or supported it makes me think it's just that grandstanding I mentioned. It's to get Trump fans excited and drum up anti-Pelosi idiots, probably hoping someone will assault her in her home.

Seems more likely than anyone actually supporting a bill from Hawley, Dems and Republicans included in that.


Wrinklestiltskin t1_j5vlrpm wrote

I think his assumption is the most reasonable seeing as how the Republicans have already prevented a legitimate version of this bill by voting against it. Why should anyone assume this is more than attention grabbing and 'owning the libs' from a well-established jackass?


turbulance4 OP t1_j5vm760 wrote

I didn't research it but I wouldn't be surprised if republicans, in the past, blocked a similar bill from Dems simply because they didn't want Dems to get "a win." That doesn't suggest Reps will also block this bill. If anything the Dems well because they want the "win."


Wrinklestiltskin t1_j5vqvgb wrote

This bill has no chance to pass, and Hawley knows this and drafted it in bad faith.

The Republicans (politicians) aren't going to want this passed and their party's voting history in the matter of regulations such as this or anti-lobbying measures is consistently to vote against it.


exhusband2bears t1_j5um8ro wrote

The person who wrote the bill also supported the attempts to overturn the 2020 election, so anything coming from him is fruit of a poisoned tree as far as I'm concerned.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5undbq wrote

I don't think it's a good look to be in favor of govt corruption because you can't get over your hate for one person.


armenia4ever t1_j5upr4t wrote

You know someone is completely blinded by their partisanship when they can't even consider the message because of the messenger. It's a heavily emotional reaction.

The insanity of this kind of logic or rather lack of it: Obama didn't support gay marriage in 2007 and prior therefore everything good he did after that is immediately poisoned and we shouldn't have the ACA or expanded medicaid.

Oh and members from both parties- biased GOP database of Dem allegations have been challenging the integrity of elections and insisting about various ones being stolen since 2000. There's dems who insist that Stacey Abrams in GA had the governorship stolen from her - all while justifiably flipping out about the 2020 stolen election nonsense.

If we want to be consistent about this, fine. But each side is willing to allege fraud when they lose, so if we immediately insist the well is poisoned for any good law or reform they propose, we would never get anything done.


Jayrob1202 t1_j5utk2s wrote

It's hard to listen to what a corrupt politician is peddling, even when the bill they're selling has the mask of anti-corruption on it.

For me, it's not about liking or not liking the man. It's about trust. I don't trust a single thing Hawley does, and I certainly don't believe he's simply working in good faith to help stop lawmakers from using their positional advantage when trading stocks.

IMO this goes for all politicians, really. I think most things they publicly do and say should be approached with skepticism.


exhusband2bears t1_j5uw0l6 wrote

Show me on the doll where I said I'm in favor of government corruption.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5uxadg wrote

The part where you stood against a bill to stop insider trading by congresspeople


exhusband2bears t1_j5v6e4r wrote

Nice charged language. I "stood against" the bill by stating that I'd back a similar bill written by another legislator. And from that, you got "dar, this guy loves corruption".

And since we're here: You realize I don't actually have a vote in Congress right? That what I think of the bill and its shitheel author is irrelevant to whether the bill is passed, right?


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5uw0x3 wrote

LOL, ok kid.

The way you need to bury your head in the sand to pretend Hawley isn't a corrupt traitor is funny.

No, we're all better off with a bill like this coming from anyone else.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5uw7ol wrote

> No, we're all better off with a bill like this coming from anyone else.

No. Who authors the bill is irrelevant.


Ed_the_time_traveler t1_j5urxr1 wrote

It's people like you, both on the left and the right, that are the problem with our country right now. Can't see the forest through the partisan trees.


Some_Adhesiveness142 t1_j5utjr3 wrote

This guy should be in prison not writing laws!!!!


turbulance4 OP t1_j5uum0t wrote

I understand he cheered a group of people outside the Capitol (?) building, before that same group decided to break into the building and try to disrupt the electoral process. I don't understand why people are saying he should be in prison for that. It's not illegal to cheer a group, and it's reasonable to assume he didn't know what they were about to do.

Did he do something else I'm not aware of?


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5uw8v3 wrote

He urged on a coup attempt and you don't find that a problem?

You're Republican, then.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5uwkrw wrote

You seem to have failed to comprehend my previous comment. Please read it again.

> You're Republican, then. Trump fan? Think the election was stolen?

No, no, and no.


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5v2igq wrote

But the violent attack on the capitol to stop the certification of a fair election and keep Trump in power isn't a coup?

Why do you guys always lie about who you support?


turbulance4 OP t1_j5v8qma wrote

Again your reading comprehension is quite lacking. At no point did is say it wasn't a coup. I said Hawley "cheered" the crowd before it was clear what they were going to do. Your criticism amounts to nothing more than him once slightly moving his fist in a way you didn't like.

Now, if I'm uniformed about something.. if he was proven in some way to be more involved in orchestrating the (pathetic attempt at a) coup.. please let me know.


More_Ovaltine_Plz_ t1_j5uypnp wrote

Christ almighty you people are so silly.

He did not urge a coup. I’ll change my mind if you can provide irrefutable evidence of this claim.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5uzwu8 wrote

Dorp the word irrefutable. If some good evidence is provided I'd look into it. Something more than "he shook his fist to a crowd before that crowd did anything illegal"


Some_Adhesiveness142 t1_j5wc2ki wrote

He was one of the first Senators to object to the certification and continued that objection even after they resumed the certification after the MAGGAT INSURRECTION. He’s a lying ass traitor that should be in prison!


turbulance4 OP t1_j5wdhsb wrote

He should go to prison for objecting? Isn't that kind of what politicians are supposed to do?


Some_Adhesiveness142 t1_j5wenqz wrote

It was what his objection was….it was all about it being a stolen election and that Joe Biden was not actually elected. He urged on the “Big Lie” that instigated the deadly violence and continued it even after he himself ran from the mob he helped create! He’s a coward and a traitor!


turbulance4 OP t1_j5wfs37 wrote

I don't think you should take the position that politicians should go to jail for claiming an election was stolen. Plenty of Dems have made this claim as well.

In the same sense that everyone charged with a crime should have a right to a lawyer, politicians should have the right to challenge an election (even when they are clearly wrong).


More_Ovaltine_Plz_ t1_j5v0kum wrote

That’s all the evidence they have. He didn’t do anything that would rise anywhere close to incitement.


Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5v278f wrote

Traitors gonna traitor. I don't see you Trump fans ever admitting it was a violent attack to stop the certification of a fair election.


More_Ovaltine_Plz_ t1_j5v3izs wrote

It was a violent attempt that failed at overturning the election.

If you thought 500 people could overturn an election without guns, you’re being very silly.


bobone77 t1_j5w017u wrote

Sorry OP, you’re either disingenuous, or not smart enough to see what this bill doesn’t do. It allows stock and security trading through a blind trust, except, we all know that people who are fine with insider trading aren’t going to play by those rules. This whole bill is designed for one thing, “owning the libs,” which it doesn’t do, because even a cursory reading reveals it to be utter garbage, and not capable of preventing the most basic corruption. Pair that with the fact that Hawley is a seditious piece of shit, and you have a recipe for…absolutely nothing of consequence.


turbulance4 OP t1_j5w0gjf wrote

The previous bill sponsored by the Dems (text) also had carve outs for a "blind trust." What else did your cursory reading tell you that it is utter garbage?


bobone77 t1_j5wbyko wrote

Why do you think both bills can’t be garbage?


turbulance4 OP t1_j5wdbo0 wrote

Previously you said:

> This whole bill is designed for one thing, “owning the libs,”

So do you also think the previous bill was designed to "own the Republicans"?


bobone77 t1_j5wdxuq wrote

That statement is clearly just referring to this particular bill, by the shit stain Hawley. Look at the name of the bill. You can’t possibly make the case that “owning the libs” isn’t the point. The previous bill was performative though. Make an attempt to look like you’re trying to curb corruption without really doing anything. I’m not going to reply all night. Contribute to the conversation by asking interesting questions or don’t expect a response.


ICareAboutNihilism t1_j5v3w2i wrote

He is virtue signaling that he is a "populist", by proposing something that has less than zero chance of happening.


-Valued_Customer- t1_j5utarg wrote

One of these days Joshy’s little Nazbol act is gonna bite him in the ass. This bill’s a bluff, but I hope Dems call him on it, because we desperately need this ban.


Moash_Wasnt_Wrong t1_j5v58yo wrote

How long until it comes out that Josh Hawley has amassed a huge stock trading portfolio while in office?


jandj11172017 t1_j5vczf4 wrote

After they made their millions. Seems right


Medicat t1_j5wiity wrote

What’s his angle?


himynameisntben t1_j5ww9ka wrote

Heartbreaking: Worst Person You Know Just Made A Good Point


Mean_Addition_6136 t1_j5yakqb wrote

Yeah, and we see how the republicans demanded that tRump be bound by the emoluments clause. This is political grandstanding bullshit and nothing else. Brought to you by the embarrassment that is rural missourah. Remember Roy Blunt wasn’t just figuratively in bed with lobbyists, he was literally in bed with a lobbyist


ho1doncaulfield t1_j5vv71v wrote

Hawley generally sucks but has some good little guy moves like this


exhusband2bears t1_j5wfuel wrote

This is the legislative equivalent of him wearing blue jeans and a flannel shirt in a campaign ad. He's as much a populist as I am a secret millionaire.


ho1doncaulfield t1_j5ycuqd wrote

I didn’t call him a populist I just said he has some good ideas


ho1doncaulfield t1_j63noxf wrote

Hey by the way it's funny you mentioned Hawley as a populist. I actually trolled Matthew Stoller into blocking me on Twitter, precisely because he tried to portray Hawley as some populist savior. I see through it too.

Matt Stoller is a good read but has some weird political heroes.


exhusband2bears t1_j63o1z9 wrote

That's pretty great.


ho1doncaulfield t1_j63ri75 wrote

Yeah Stoller has a really cool substack on monopoly power that I read a lot. I’m subscribed to it, it’s called BIG. But his opinions on a lot of other things are bad imo, which includes Hawley lol


exhusband2bears t1_j63taew wrote

I guess it makes a little sense given Stoller's field and Hawley's signalling about tech monopolies and the like, but Hawley's so transparently self-serving that I'm surprised anyone would be taken in by his act.


zaqwsx82211 t1_j60ydwh wrote

I hate that I agree with him on something


turbulance4 OP t1_j61112o wrote

at least you can admit you agree, unlike a few others on this thread.


realtalkyo91 t1_j5x1pd9 wrote

Upvote farming simulator - just write “Hawley is bad” on any portion of this thread and rake them in!


whattheduce86 t1_j5z2kj6 wrote

He’s the same one trying to ban tiktok too


turbulance4 OP t1_j5z76rz wrote

Ok, but is that relevant? I'm asking you to consider this bill and, more importantly, show support for the bill. Does how Hawley feels about tiktok in any way change whether congresspeople should be trading stock while in office?


[deleted] t1_j61lml1 wrote



turbulance4 OP t1_j621n6u wrote

No? Do you have any evidence of his insider trading?


[deleted] t1_j629ydu wrote



turbulance4 OP t1_j62yb7q wrote

You mean, like ever calling anyone out for anything? Why?

There are about 1000 news articles about Pelosi insider trading. I already linked several elsewhere in this comment section.