Pelosi kills Congressional stock trading ban bill

[ll74]

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?

The argument was made that Democrats vote lock step with each other, and I disputed that. Its.irrelevant to my argument whether you like it or not.

Variety and diversity.of opinion is a good thing imo.

 

[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.

You are equating apples with oranges. Private business and elected politics are two very different animals. When you hire a sales manager you expect the to perform. When they don't, the company will find someone who will. Unless you have had your head in the sand, which appears to be the case, that isn't how it happens in politics. All you gotta do is pander to those who agree with you. You get enough, no matter how qualified you are, no matter how well you do the job, and they vote for you. Once a politician is elected, as an incumbent, the deck is stacked in their favor, so you can piss on anyone's boot you wish to, can do outrageous stuff and STILL GET REELECTED!

Take a look at congress and tell me with a straight face that's not true, tell me that all of them, or even a majority of them are top level lawmakers. We do have some that have the best interest of their constituents at heart, but the longer they stay in office, the more it is about them, getting reelected and getting theirs.

You are insisting that, "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." are you? So in essence you are saying that ALL the elected representatives in congress are the best we can get because people voted for them? Keep in mind that your "qualified candidate" is someone else's boogyman. Do you have your eyes open, or is your bias coloring your vision?

Term limits would end the accumulated power of a few, the "oldtimers" the ones with seniority who control everything in congress. It would also end the slow shift that happens from being concerned about what happens to those who vote for them, to themselves.

As far as your statement,"Might as flip coins or roll dice if actual living breathing people are not going to be making these types of decisions." WTF??? That is a an extremely ignorant statement. Who do you think is going to elect the ones replacing those who go out because of term limits? THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THE FIRST ONES!

Comshaw

 

[BluesDriver66]

You are equating apples with oranges. Private business and elected politics are two very different animals. When you hire a sales manager you expect the to perform. When they don't, the company will find someone who will. Unless you have had your head in the sand, which appears to be the case, that isn't how it happens in politics. All you gotta do is pander to those who agree with you. You get enough, no matter how qualified you are, no matter how well you do the job, and they vote for you. Once a politician is elected, as an incumbent, the deck is stacked in their favor, so you can piss on anyone's boot you wish to, can do outrageous stuff and STILL GET REELECTED!

Take a look at congress and tell me with a straight face that's not true, tell me that all of them, or even a majority of them are top level lawmakers. We do have some that have the best interest of their constituents at heart, but the longer they stay in office, the more it is about them, getting reelected and getting theirs.

You are insisting that, "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." are you? So in essence you are saying that ALL the elected representatives in congress are the best we can get because people voted for them? Keep in mind that your "qualified candidate" is someone else's boogyman. Do you have your eyes open, or is your bias coloring your vision?

Term limits would end the accumulated power of a few, the "oldtimers" the ones with seniority who control everything in congress. It would also end the slow shift that happens from being concerned about what happens to those who vote for them, to themselves.

As far as your statement,"Might as flip coins or roll dice if actual living breathing people are not going to be making these types of decisions." WTF??? That is a an extremely ignorant statement. Who do you think is going to elect the ones replacing those who go out because of term limits? THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THE FIRST ONES!

Comshaw

Self imposed arbitrary rules are always stupid and lazy. The notion that you need to make rules to save yourself from your own decisions is absurd. Any politician you don't like you can simply vote them out no matter how long they've served. That's what AOC did. It's done all the time.

Term limits places restrictions on the people who want to vote for a particular candidate thus limiting their freedom to choose how they want to be governed. That's why the Supreme Court pimp slapped this stupid shit down like a ho who didn't have their money. It's been ruled unconstitutional for good reason.

Notice those that dissent are the far right wing, anti-freedom, proto-fascists nutbags on the court.


U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded:

Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.


Majority
Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent
Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia

 

[BluesDriver66]

The argument was made that Democrats vote lock step with each other, and I disputed that. Its.irrelevant to my argument whether you like it or not.

Variety and diversity.of opinion is a good thing imo.

Diversity of opinion in your political party is fucking brain dead stupid. Yeah, lets invite right wing, conservative, anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, anti-environment, pro-corporate, homophobes into the party for the sake of diversity. Because everybody knows when you have in your organization people that oppose everything your organization stands for you are guaranteed success.

 

[ll74]

Diversity of opinion in your political party is fucking brain dead stupid. Yeah, lets invite right wing, conservative, anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, anti-environment, pro-corporate, homophobes into the party for the sake of diversity. Because everybody knows when you have in your organization people that oppose everything your organization stands for you are guaranteed success.

That's a fine opinion to have. The Republican party is lock step, so perhaps that's a consideration for you.

As I said, your opinion is irrelevant to my comment and I personally don't give a shit whether you like it or not.

 

[BluesDriver66]

That's a fine opinion to have. The Republican party is lock step, so perhaps that's a consideration for you.

As I said, your opinion is irrelevant to my comment and I personally don't give a shit whether you like it or not.

Stop trying to be cute. Republicans are fucking repulsive and that's why I don't want them in the Democratic party. You seem to think diversity of opinion, even if it's the opinions of right wing racists and anti-abortionists is a good thing in the party. Let's invite them in a give them a big hug then watch them kill every major progressive bill they can get their hands on. We have to be fair and inclusive to people who want rape victims to bear the children of their attackers because diversity is more important than common fucking sense.

Oh, and you can stop with the, "I don't care if you don't like my opinion" crap in every post. You sound like some bratty teenage girl doused in bubble gum scented perfume.

 

[ll74]

Stop trying to be cute. Republicans are fucking repulsive and that's why I don't want them in the Democratic party. You seem to think diversity of opinion, even if it's the opinions of right wing racists and anti-abortionists is a good thing in the party. Let's invite them in a give them a big hug then watch them kill every major progressive bill they can get their hands on. We have to be fair and inclusive to people who want rape victims to bear the children of their attackers because diversity is more important than common fucking sense.

Oh, and you can stop with the, "I don't care if you don't like my opinion" crap in every post. You sound like some bratty teenage girl doused in bubble gum scented perfume.

My point was made. Sorry about your feels.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Pelosi is terrible on policy but her political skills are undeniable. She does a terrific job at getting her party in line for the big far left progressive votes that count. Herding cats in the House is hard. Don’t take my word for it. Just ask Bhoener, Ryan, and McCarthy.

 

[YDB95]

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.

Biden is a moderate (just not in the view of people like you who see everyone to the left of John McCain as a communist), so Spanberger's record hardly makes her a lefty. As for how often she votes with Pelosi, I repeat, the speaker rarely votes, so that 92% is probably out of a very small number of votes - probably votes that were very close and Pelosi needed every last vote including her own - and even then, Spanberger didn't vote with her every time.

 

[Comshaw]

Self imposed arbitrary rules are always stupid and lazy. The notion that you need to make rules to save yourself from your own decisions is absurd. Any politician you don't like you can simply vote them out no matter how long they've served. That's what AOC did. It's done all the time.

Term limits places restrictions on the people who want to vote for a particular candidate thus limiting their freedom to choose how they want to be governed. That's why the Supreme Court pimp slapped this stupid shit down like a ho who didn't have their money. It's been ruled unconstitutional for good reason.

Notice those that dissent are the far right wing, anti-freedom, proto-fascists nutbags on the court.


U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded:

Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.


Majority
Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent
Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia

"Self imposed arbitrary rules" hmmmm...so any self-imposed rules are stupid and lazy? Or just the ones you disagree with? And your use of "arbitrary" to quote Inigo, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means."

If you do believe it is applicable to term limits, please explain why. I don't see it.

If the people decide that term limits are a good thing, how in the world can it be “arbitrary”? It can't be. There are reasons for it and good ones at that. Your base argument against it is an emotional one, that it's "stupid and lazy". While emotional arguments have their place, on a subject like this they do not.

From your argument against term limits I assume you are opposed to the term limits for president? It appears, since it was a constitutional amendment that the people wanted it. Should we do away with it because it won't allow people to vote for a presidential candidate who has served two terms? Term limits would not allow people to vote for a candidate if that candidate has reached the law imposed limit, that is true. I believe that the good term limits would do (which I detailed earlier) far outweigh the small consequence of a few who would be angry, or feel their rights were curtailed because they couldn't vote for a candidate indefinitely.

I suppose you could consider all those who worked for the presidential term limit amendment to be lazy and stupid, and the minority who opposed it to be intelligent and productive. But as I said, allowing emotion to make decisions on such issues is exactly how you describe it, lazy and stupid.

As far as your bolded statement, you do realize you shot your argument all to hell don't you? The right to choose representatives does belong to the people, as does the power HOW TO choose OR TO LIMIT those candidates. The people are and should be the final deciding factor on issues like this, either through our representatives or directly.

Since you are so adamantly opposed to term limits, tell me what harm the presidential term limits have caused? And what advantage, other than the minor issue of not being able to vote for a candidate indefinitely, does not having term limits have?

Comshaw

 

[YDB95]

From your argument against term limits I assume you are opposed to the term limits for president? It appears, since it was a constitutional amendment that the people wanted it.

Well, the people who voted Republican wanted it, because they saw it as the only way to prevent another Franklin Roosevelt from ever getting elected for more than two terms. Similarly, they are also the ones who first pushed for term limits, back in the '80s. It was an open secret then that once the last generation of conservative Southern Democrats in the House retired, their seats were sure to be Republican pickups. They just wanted to accelerate the process by a few years.

And "the people want it" is not necessarily a good reason to support anything. There was a time when "the people" supported slavery, opposed women's suffrage, had no objection to subjugation of people of color, and more recently, opposed interracial or same-sex marriages. What's popular isn't necessarily what's right.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Biden is a moderate

Lol.
$739 billion health care and climate bill

15% AMT on the domestic profits of American companies

1% excise tax on stock buybacks

Extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years for the 35 million ACA enrollees

$1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) extended eligibility for ACA health insurance subsidies by 20%
CHIPs Act,

$52.7 billion subsidies to semiconductor companies

$1.2 trillion “Infrastructure” subsidies

$10,000 forgiveness per student in loan debt, $20,000 for those who received Pell grants. wipe out debt completely for about 20 million people

Pipeline cancellation

 

[YDB95]

Lol.
$739 billion health care and climate bill

15% AMT on the domestic profits of American companies

1% excise tax on stock buybacks

Extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years for the 35 million ACA enrollees

$1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) extended eligibility for ACA health insurance subsidies by 20%
CHIPs Act,

$52.7 billion subsidies to semiconductor companies

$1.2 trillion “Infrastructure” subsidies

$10,000 forgiveness per student in loan debt, $20,000 for those who received Pell grants. wipe out debt completely for about 20 million people

Pipeline cancellation

I reiterate what I said after the very small bit of my post that you quoted. You simply think anyone an inch to the left of center is a wild-eyed radical. That's your misguided perspective, not the truth. None of the items you list here are extreme by any other perspective.

 

[Comshaw]

Well, the people who voted Republican wanted it, because they saw it as the only way to prevent another Franklin Roosevelt from ever getting elected for more than two terms. Similarly, they are also the ones who first pushed for term limits, back in the '80s. It was an open secret then that once the last generation of conservative Southern Democrats in the House retired, their seats were sure to be Republican pickups. They just wanted to accelerate the process by a few years.

And "the people want it" is not necessarily a good reason to support anything. There was a time when "the people" supported slavery, opposed women's suffrage, had no objection to subjugation of people of color, and more recently, opposed interracial or same-sex marriages. What's popular isn't necessarily what's right.

True, the people supported slavery, until they didn't. The people supported not allowing women to vote, until they didn't. Where do you think the thirteenth, fifteenth and nineteenth constitutional amendments came from? They didn't spring whole cloth from the hearts of our representatives, nor did the courts order them into existence. It took 2/3rds of congress critters and 2/3rds of the states to ratify them to bring them into existence. And none of that would have happened if the people hadn't supported it.

For every instance you point to that is bad that the people supported, I can point to one that is good. As you say "because the people want it" is not necessarily a good reason to support it, but when it is accompanied by a sound, logical, truthful, fair argument, it IS a very good reason indeed.

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I reiterate what I said after the very small bit of my post that you quoted. You simply think anyone an inch to the left of center is a wild-eyed radical. That's your misguided perspective, not the truth. None of the items you list here are extreme by any other perspective.

Our “moderate” president has abysmal approval ratings on the economy, inflation, the border and other top of mind policy issues. Election is a little more than a month away. 435 House seats are on the ballot. Let’s how your perception of moderate policy plays with swing district voters.

 

[YDB95]

Our “moderate” president has abysmal approval ratings on the economy, inflation, the border and other top of mind policy issues. Election is a little more than a month away. 435 House seats are on the ballot. Let’s how your perception of moderate policy plays with swing district voters.

None of that has anything to do with whether or not he's a moderate.

 

[JohnEBbad]

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

That's the defense? Third in line for the President isn't the worst?

If she were a Republican, would you then demand she be removed from the list?
I guess we'll have to leave that one up to the voters in November since there is no other mechanism...

Nancy has put her Party into the position where the members must pay the price and she will retire with "honors."

 

[icanhelp1]

Lol.
$739 billion health care and climate bill

15% AMT on the domestic profits of American companies

1% excise tax on stock buybacks

Extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years for the 35 million ACA enrollees

$1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) extended eligibility for ACA health insurance subsidies by 20%
CHIPs Act,

$52.7 billion subsidies to semiconductor companies

$1.2 trillion “Infrastructure” subsidies

$10,000 forgiveness per student in loan debt, $20,000 for those who received Pell grants. wipe out debt completely for about 20 million people

Pipeline cancellation

YB's description of Biden being a moderate is Biden wanting to spend 10 trillion but only spent 9... so he saved us a trillion... LMFAO. Democratic frugality at work. Putting restrictions on energy production at the worst possible time is Biden being a moderate. The whole planet is a trigger pull away from war and Biden's moderate position is to deplete the SPR. The whole planet understands that the green initiative is failing and yet Biden's moderate position is GO GREEN!!!! AT ALL COST!!! Biden is an incompetent fool. His economic policy has finally caught up with him, now the markets are in bare market territory, trillions in lost wealth an is only going to get worse.

 

[Comshaw]

That's the defense? Third in line for the President isn't the worst?

If she were a Republican, would you then demand she be removed from the list?
I guess we'll have to leave that one up to the voters in November since there is no other mechanism...

Nancy has put her Party into the position where the members must pay the price and she will retire with "honors."

You can say that with a straight face and in the next breath defend what the donald did as president? BAWAHAHA! Damn, I ain't had a belly laugh like that in a long time!

Comshaw

 

[YDB95]

YB's description of Biden being a moderate is Biden wanting to spend 10 trillion but only spent 9... so he saved us a trillion... LMFAO. Democratic frugality at work.

The record shows which party has consistently been better at lowering deficits, as opposed to just whining about them.

 

[JohnEBbad]

You can say that with a straight face and in the next breath defend what the donald did as president? BAWAHAHA! Damn, I ain't had a belly laugh like that in a long time!

Comshaw

I never defended the Donald. That's just ascription on your part. My big sin was that I didn't hate him the way y'all did. I reserve that kind of hate for crooked Hillary.

So, if you had a "belly laugh," it's probably because you're just one of God's "special people" or a Jack Nicholson Shining type writ small and harmless...

 

[ll74]

Lmao

 

[Comshaw]

I never defended the Donald. That's just ascription on your part. My big sin was that I didn't hate him the way y'all did. I reserve that kind of hate for crooked Hillary.

So, if you had a "belly laugh," it's probably because you're just one of God's "special people" or a Jack Nicholson Shining type writ small and harmless...

I don't hate him, I just realize what he is, what he has done and how dangerous he can be to this country. I didn't say you defended the donald, I did say you DEFENDED WHAT HE DID. And you have, on a constant on-going basis. Trying to make it sound like you didn't defend his actions, while doing so in a deceptive backhanded way doesn't fool anyone.

Comshaw

 

[MissMandy86]

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.

View attachment 2180081

View attachment 2180080

https://dingo.care2.com/pictures/petition_images/petition/339/956126-1547670700-wide.jpg

First of all .. her husband owns an investment firm that has been handed down through his family for over a hundred years

You see how the right wingers lie and twist stuff .. they put up Pelosi salary but don't mention her husband's salary.. they don't mention that her husband is extremely wealthy .. like more wealth then Trump


But they do mention her husband when they mention stock trading because owning an investment firm of course he would be doing huge tradesbit .. of course they leave out the investment firm and make it sound like it's just him and her


See how they lie .. like propaganda that comes out of Russia
They spread misinformation and are not patriotic.. they are a cancer on our country.. a tumor

 

[icanhelp1]

Well, the people who voted Republican wanted it, because they saw it as the only way to prevent another Franklin Roosevelt from ever getting elected for more than two terms. Similarly, they are also the ones who first pushed for term limits, back in the '80s. It was an open secret then that once the last generation of conservative Southern Democrats in the House retired, their seats were sure to be Republican pickups. They just wanted to accelerate the process by a few years.

And "the people want it" is not necessarily a good reason to support anything. There was a time when "the people" supported slavery, opposed women's suffrage, had no objection to subjugation of people of color, and more recently, opposed interracial or same-sex marriages. What's popular isn't necessarily what's right.

And the party *wants* isn’t necessarily a good reason to support anything either. What happened to politicians supporting their constituents over party. Longevity on the job doesn’t always equate to quality performance.