Pelosi kills Congressional stock trading ban bill

[BabyBoomer50s]

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, (D), VA:
“This moment is yet another example of why I believe that the Democratic Party needs new leaders in the halls of Capitol Hill — as I have long made known.

“Rather than bring Members of Congress together who are passionate about this issue, House leadership chose to ignore these voices, push them aside, and look for new ways they could string the media and the public along — and evade public criticism.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ous-at-pelosi-after-stock-trading-ban-stalls/

 

[Comshaw]

Rep. Abigail Spanberger, (D), VA:
“This moment is yet another example of why I believe that the Democratic Party needs new leaders in the halls of Capitol Hill — as I have long made known.

“Rather than bring Members of Congress together who are passionate about this issue, House leadership chose to ignore these voices, push them aside, and look for new ways they could string the media and the public along — and evade public criticism.”
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...ous-at-pelosi-after-stock-trading-ban-stalls/

Hmmmm...from the article:

"Democratic leaders unveiled draft legislation to tackle the issue Tuesday, just days before Congress was set to leave for an extended recess. That left lawmakers little time to review the bill or offer changes, such as closing loopholes that critics say make the bill toothless, dooming its chances of a floor vote."

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Friday that the bill didn’t come to the floor because it didn’t have the votes to pass."

“The problem is that the bill allows people to create a trust that they can claim is blind and diversified, and yet it doesn’t actually have to meet the criteria that are currently in the law for it to officially be a blind trust,” said Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, an advocate with The Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a nonprofit watchdog organization."

“It’s basically a fake blind trust,” he said. “We don’t have that much trust in what the ethics committee is going to do because they’re notoriously weak in doing anything that’s particularly restrictive or robust around what happens internally.”

Well DAMN!!! Pelosi won't bring a bill to the floor that can't get enough votes to pass, and is so full of loopholes you can drive a semi through them?

What the hell is that dumb broad thinking????

And for everyones info, the text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3494/text


Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Hmmmm...from the article:



Well DAMN!!! Pelosi won't bring a bill to the floor that can't get enough votes to pass, and is so full of loopholes you can drive a semi through them?

What the hell is that dumb broad thinking????

And for everyones info, the text of the bill:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3494/text


Comshaw

Perhaps she did it purposely. She is the Speaker of the House and certainly has proven ability to get tough legislation passed. This had bipartisan support and should have been a cakewalk for her. Husband Paul might have told her to nix it.

“DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN the House of Representatives tanked an opportunity to pass a key ethics reform Thursday, according to several Democratic and Republican staffers involved in bipartisan efforts to ban stock trading by members of Congress. Those staffers say leadership’s move appears crafted to head off broad bipartisan support for reform.”

https://theintercept.com/2022/09/30/house-stocks-trade-ban-fail/

 

[BluesDriver66]

She's as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Shame on any Democrat that tries to put lip stick on this pig. If you do, you are as crooked as she is. Or just as stupid and gullible as some MAGA nut with a degree from Trump University.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Also amusing that Democrats like Spanberger who are calling for her head vote with her 100% of the time

 

[BluesDriver66]

Also amusing that Democrats like Spanberger who are calling for her head vote with her 100% of the time

So she should vote with Republicans who are just as corrupt with the added bonus of being openly racist and anti-abortion? No. That would be fucking stupid.

 

[YDB95]

Also amusing that Democrats like Spanberger who are calling for her head vote with her 100% of the time

Why do you do this to yourself? That was one of your easiest claims yet to debunk:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/abigail_spanberger/412833

Spanberger is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress (as befits her reddish-purple district), and furthermore, the speaker rarely votes. So even if you were to look at how often she and Pelosi voted together, that would be on only a very small percentage of all House votes, where usually Spanberger voted and Pelosi didn't.

 

[Comshaw]

Perhaps she did it purposely. She is the Speaker of the House and certainly has proven ability to get tough legislation passed. This had bipartisan support and should have been a cakewalk for her. Husband Paul might have told her to nix it.

“DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN the House of Representatives tanked an opportunity to pass a key ethics reform Thursday, according to several Democratic and Republican staffers involved in bipartisan efforts to ban stock trading by members of Congress. Those staffers say leadership’s move appears crafted to head off broad bipartisan support for reform.”

https://theintercept.com/2022/09/30/house-stocks-trade-ban-fail/

Nice quote BUT:

"After House leaders introduced a bill to curtail stock trading by federal officials on Tuesday, Democrats AND Republicans pointed out the discrepancies between the leadership-approved version and the carefully negotiated bipartisan bills that predated it. Those discrepancies led to several members saying they could not vote on the measure without reviewing the text and determining whether the bill could draw enough votes in both chambers to become law."

"When backlash to the leadership version of the bill emerged, leaders pulled it from the schedule. The decision to punt further action until after the midterm elections imperils the odds that any version of the ban will pass the House and Senate. Several sources close to bipartisan negotiations on the subject tell The Intercept that may have been the point. On Friday, Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., called it “a kitchen-sink package that they knew would immediately crash upon arrival.”

There maybe a handful of congress critters that are serious about passing such legislation, but the majority, from both sides DO NOT WANT IT. The Republicans are masters of political theater, but the Dems aren't immune to it. This is a tactic as old as congress, make it LOOK like you are doing something about something without actually doing anything.

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Why do you do this to yourself? That was one of your easiest claims yet to debunk:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/abigail_spanberger/412833

Spanberger is one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress (as befits her reddish-purple district), and furthermore, the speaker rarely votes. So even if you were to look at how often she and Pelosi voted together, that would be on only a very small percentage of all House votes, where usually Spanberger voted and Pelosi didn't.

Ok. She‘s “only” voted with Nancy 92% of the time and 100% on bills Biden has taken a position on. That makes her “one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress.” Lol.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Nice quote BUT:



There maybe a handful of congress critters that are serious about passing such legislation, but the majority, from both sides DO NOT WANT IT. The Republicans are masters of political theater, but the Dems aren't immune to it. This is a tactic as old as congress, make it LOOK like you are doing something about something without actually doing anything.

Comshaw

Exactly. To the chagrin of her GOP opponents, she’s a highly effective leader, persuader, and arm twister. When she wants votes, her troops fall in line. She didn’t want a ban on stock trading and she effectively closed the door on the issue. Many Democrats in the House and most Republicans agree with her that it’s a bad idea so it won’t be coming back anytime soon.

 

[icanhelp1]

Also amusing that Democrats like Spanberger who are calling for her head vote with her 100% of the time

All democrats vote in lockstep like the mindless bots they are. Party loyalty above the needs of their constituents.

 

[icanhelp1]

Exactly. To the chagrin of her GOP opponents, she’s a highly effective leader, persuader, and arm twister. When she wants votes, her troops fall in line. She didn’t want a ban on stock trading and she effectively closed the door on the issue. Many Democrats in the House and most Republicans agree with her that it’s a bad idea so it won’t be coming back anytime soon.

Republicans are just as crooked, more interested in self preservation and living off the government’s teat and procuring wealth at the expense of their constituents and we dumbasses electorate keep voting them jackasses into office.

 

[Veroe]

Exactly. To the chagrin of her GOP opponents, she’s a highly effective leader, persuader, and arm twister. When she wants votes, her troops fall in line. She didn’t want a ban on stock trading and she effectively closed the door on the issue. Many Democrats in the House and most Republicans agree with her that it’s a bad idea so it won’t be coming back anytime soon.

The squad or justice Democrats were supposed to be different than the other more corporate friendly Democrats, but sadly they've proven that they are not immune to Pelosi's and democratic party leadership's and their allies in the mainstream liberal media's arm twisting either.

Their whole point was for them to act on Pelosi like the freedom caucus did on John Boehner. Alas they failed in that I'd say.

 

[icanhelp1]

The squad or justice Democrats were supposed to be different than the other more corporate friendly Democrats, but sadly they've proven that they are not immune to Pelosi's and democratic party leadership's and their allies in the mainstream liberal media's arm twisting either.

Their whole point was for them to act on Pelosi like the freedom caucus did on John Boehner. Alas they failed in that I'd say.

The squad is anti rule of law, *defund the police* squad, marxist ideology. Green agenda regardless of the damage it does to our economy. Stupid ignorant people vote stupid ignorant people into office.

 

[Veroe]

The squad is anti rule of law, *defund the police* squad, marxist ideology. Green agenda regardless of the damage it does to our economy. Stupid ignorant people vote stupid ignorant people into office.

You're wrong and missed the point I was making. I was talking about the purpose of why they were formed and the effect they were supposed to have on party leadership. Alas it seems to me that the results are pretty mixed in that area for the justice Democrats.

 

[ll74]

All democrats vote in lockstep like the mindless bots they are. Party loyalty above the needs of their constituents.

There is more variation of views within the Democratic party than in the Republican party. Any look at a vote would tell you that

 

[MarcvsAvrelivs]

Of course she did.
Insider trading has been very good to her family.

 

[Comshaw]

Of course she did.
Insider trading has been very good to her family.

Probably, but she isn't the only or even the worst offender. It NEVER works well when you put the Fox in charge of the hen house. When you put a group of people in charge, give them power to police their own it never, ever works well. It takes an exceptional person to resist temptation and our congress people are just that, people, some corrupt, some weak all are fallible. There is a reason the constitution has the checks and balances it does. I'm not one to think the founding fathers were perfect, but I do think they instinctively knew people given ultimate power were subject to corruption. They tried to address that, but like all fallible people they missed a few holes.

I'd love to see term limits, but that isn't going to happen (because of a politician from my state, Tom Foley) anytime soon. It would require congress to make it so and they damned sure aren't going to curtail their own power willingly.

Comshaw

 

[BluesDriver66]

Probably, but she isn't the only or even the worst offender. It NEVER works well when you put the Fox in charge of the hen house. When you put a group of people in charge, give them power to police their own it never, ever works well. It takes an exceptional person to resist temptation and our congress people are just that, people, some corrupt, some weak all are fallible. There is a reason the constitution has the checks and balances it does. I'm not one to think the founding fathers were perfect, but I do think they instinctively knew people given ultimate power were subject to corruption. They tried to address that, but like all fallible people they missed a few holes.

I'd love to see term limits, but that isn't going to happen (because of a politician from my state, Tom Foley) anytime soon. It would require congress to make it so and they damned sure aren't going to curtail their own power willingly.

Comshaw

Term limits is an exceedingly stupid idea. Creating arbitrary limits regardless of performance of the representative does absolutely nothing to improve results. In no other business would this be considered wise. "Bill is our top sales manager, the best we ever had. Let's replace him because it's been two years. Let's get someone with less experience, no proven track record, and more likely than not will not match his sales records."

Term limits only makes the revolving door of dirty politicians spin faster and prevents good politicians from making significant change over time. It does absolutely nothing to decrease corruption. It's a feel good solution for lazy people that don't want to do the work of selecting quality candidates and lets some arbitrary rule decide instead. Might as flip coins or roll dice if actual living breathing people are not going to be making these types of decisions.

 

[BluesDriver66]

There is more variation of views within the Democratic party than in the Republican party. Any look at a vote would tell you that

Varied views don't mean shit in the Democratic party unless it's the views of right wing conservatives. What gets passed? Only what right wing conservatives allow to get passed. Just like in the Republican party. Right wing conservatives control the Republican party. Right wing conservatives control the Democratic party. Just ask Joe Manchin.

 

[ll74]

Varied views don't mean shit in the Democratic party unless it's the views of right wing conservatives. What gets passed? Only what right wing conservatives allow to get passed. Just like in the Republican party. Right wing conservatives control the Republican party. Right wing conservatives control the Democratic party. Just ask Joe Manchin.

You're not arguing the same thing that is being discussed.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The funny part about Abigail Spanberger’s faux attack on Pelosi is that the two of them are in on the gag. Spanberger is a lefty who is in a tight race against a formidable Hispanic woman in a pivotal swing district. Despite voting with Biden 100% of the time and Nancy 92% of the time, she’s trying hard to position herself as a bipartisan moderate. Nancy is no doubt happy to give Abigail something to bitch about and pretend she’s something other than a progressive Democrat.

 

[BluesDriver66]

You're not arguing the same thing that is being discussed.

Of course I am. You just don't like being reminded that right wing conservatives are the ones in the Democratic party who's "varied votes" are the ones that actually make a difference. Leadership never goes begging to to true progressives to get anything passed but groveling in front Joe Manchin is a regular event you can set your watch to.

 

[ll74]

Of course I am. You just don't like being reminded that right wing conservatives are the ones in the Democratic party who's "varied votes" are the ones that actually make a difference. Leadership never goes begging to to true progressives to get anything passed but groveling in front Joe Manchin is a regular event you can set your watch to.

No, you're not. You're arguing obstructionism. The discussion is variation of perspective within each party.

Yes, there are widely differing views within the Democratic party and that's a good thing.

 

[BluesDriver66]

No, you're not. You're arguing obstructionism. The discussion is variation of perspective within each party.

Yes, there are widely differing views within the Democratic party and that's a good thing.

No. It's a fucking bad thing. Really fucking bad! Presidential elections stolen. Supreme courts seats stolen. Abortion rights stolen. No universal health care like the rest of the civilized world. Exactly how does kissing right wing conservative ass and allowing them in the Democratic party improve the party? Exactly what makes it a "good thing" beyond some empty headed cliche or platitude?