turbulance4
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vv8lf wrote
Reply to comment by pssssn in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vm760 wrote
Reply to comment by Wrinklestiltskin in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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."
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vkwxf wrote
Reply to comment by Low_Tourist in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vhthb wrote
Reply to comment by AuthorityAnarchyYes in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
Nice contribution. I'll spend a few hours trying to understand your position.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vep91 wrote
Reply to comment by laffingriver in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
again you can read the text, I saw a definition section when I skimmed it.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vd7fl wrote
Reply to comment by cktk9 in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
> 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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vczst wrote
Reply to comment by laffingriver in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5v8qma wrote
Reply to comment by Dontlookimpeeing in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5v48a3 wrote
Reply to comment by Dontlookimpeeing in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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"?
turbulance4 OP t1_j5v27tf wrote
Reply to comment by Lachet in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
I'm unaware of this.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uzwu8 wrote
Reply to comment by More_Ovaltine_Plz_ in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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"
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uxadg wrote
Reply to comment by exhusband2bears in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
The part where you stood against a bill to stop insider trading by congresspeople
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uwkrw wrote
Reply to comment by Dontlookimpeeing in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uw7ol wrote
Reply to comment by Dontlookimpeeing in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
> No, we're all better off with a bill like this coming from anyone else.
No. Who authors the bill is irrelevant.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uvz65 wrote
Reply to comment by Dontlookimpeeing in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uviw8 wrote
Reply to comment by Dontlookimpeeing in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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?
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uuxmj wrote
Reply to comment by Jayrob1202 in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
you can read the text of the bill. Trust isn't required.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uupfh wrote
Reply to comment by -Valued_Customer- in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
Does "call him on it" mean pass the bill in this case?
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uum0t wrote
Reply to comment by Some_Adhesiveness142 in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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?
turbulance4 OP t1_j5urn1y wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5undbq wrote
Reply to comment by exhusband2bears in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5ulzu7 wrote
Reply to comment by wildkarrde23 in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5ulklb wrote
Reply to comment by exhusband2bears in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
The person who wrote the bill is more important than a good bill passing?
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?
turbulance4 OP t1_j5vvn34 wrote
Reply to comment by pssssn in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
Also your 2nd link is not the current bill but the previous one. Here is the current one: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/LEW23036.pdf