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

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

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."

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.

Nice contribution. I'll spend a few hours trying to understand your position.

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

> 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.

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.

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.

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

Forbes

I'm unaware of this.

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"

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

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.

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

No. Who authors the bill is irrelevant.

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.

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?

you can read the text of the bill. Trust isn't required.

Does "call him on it" mean pass the bill in this case?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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