Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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?

9

Dontlookimpeeing t1_j5uv4wr wrote

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

13

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?

7

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.

10

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?

5

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."

2

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.

5

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.

3

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.

16

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.

9

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.

8

exhusband2bears t1_j5uw0l6 wrote

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

−1

turbulance4 OP t1_j5uxadg wrote

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

4

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?

3

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.

−1

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.

8