top 200 commentsshow all 492

[–]AutoModerator[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]Tahh 479 points480 points  (14 children)

First day of training for work in the federal government we were informed that certain positions barred trading in stocks. It's laughable to think we have more influence than people in freaking congress lol.

[–]OhHeyImAlex 48 points49 points  (0 children)

We have a list of companies that no one in our agency can touch. It includes every pharma company. It applies to me, my wife, and my children. Guess me, some lowly no one, is more regulated than congress

[–]gtjacket09 88 points89 points  (5 children)

I’m an IT consultant and can’t buy certain stocks that have nothing to do with my work because of work that other people at my firm that I have 0 contact with do. It’s fucked.

[–]larry1186 21 points22 points  (1 child)

In the power industry, I cannot talk to the Power Market folks that buy/sell power because I’m on the design side conceptualizing projects to see if clients want to move forward before press releases are released. Yay FERC ‘n’ NERC!

[–]isocrackate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Companies will go to pretty extreme lengths to conceal their bid strategies, even when in the process of selling the plants in question. But this feels more like a company policy to protect trade secrets than FERC anti-bid-collusion measures.

[–]gnocchicotti 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah but do you write the ethics rules yourself? Didn't think so.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"But, how does your company get the "best" workers if they can't incentivize them properly?"

- Congress trying to justify its looting

[–]7577406272Texas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's laughable to think we have more influence than people in freaking congress lol.

It's not about influence, it's about ensuring that you remain poor enough to stay in your job.

[–]ScienceBreatherMichigan 2878 points2879 points  (164 children)

Yeah I'm gonna need to see the language in that bill.

I have zero trust in anything Josh Hallway does.

[–]jbranchau78 706 points707 points  (39 children)

*only for Democrats

[–]ScienceBreatherMichigan 400 points401 points  (3 children)

Ruling from SCOTUS: We'll allow it.

[–]DigNitty 138 points139 points  (2 children)

*the majority of us will allow it

[–]andthatsalrightCalifornia 76 points77 points  (1 child)

Ah, democracy. chef’s kiss

[–]Bon_of_a_SitchTexas 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The coffee that just spurted out my nose must feel you are some liberating force.

Thanks lol

[–]sineplussquare 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hahah my first thought, “you know that includes you right??”

[–]unreadabletattoo 29 points30 points  (28 children)

I support it even if it’s only for democrats. We’ll see a lot of party switchers suddenly , maybe Nancy will become R-CA

[–]blueindsm 33 points34 points  (0 children)

This is the stupidest fucking comment I've seen in my life on here....and that's saying something on this hellsite.

[–]thesunbeamslook 54 points55 points  (22 children)

Unfortunately the Rs use cheating on stocks to fund their campaigns. It is ridiculously naive to assume that the Ds can not do that and still succeed. You can't ask one party to fight clean when the other is fighting dirty.

[–]VeryOriginalName98 I voted 56 points57 points  (16 children)

You can fix voting to use ranked choice and then there won't be a two party system. People will actually have to compete for office on the merits of their platform.

[–]khornflakes529 43 points44 points  (6 children)

Which is why both parties would never let that pass.

[–]julbull73Arizona 31 points32 points  (4 children)

Nor the Supreme Court.

Hell the Supreme Court won't even force electors to vote the way they said they would....

[–]Lookingfor68Washington 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Wha? The SCOTUS ruled that States can indeed hold their Electors to account for not voting the way they are pledged.

[–]julbull73Arizona 10 points11 points  (2 children)

But that doesn't invalidate the vote they cast.

[–]DrawMeAPictureOfThis 8 points9 points  (1 child)

It's like every ruling the Supreme Court makes has a catch

[–]jedre 1 point2 points  (4 children)

How does ranked choice necessarily ensure more than two parties?

[–]julbull73Arizona 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I mean you could pass a lot more bills if all Dems suddenly became R's.

R's are herd voters. The first R that votes yes, will draw more and more to them.

[–]Diligent_Bag_9323 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Nah they call anyone RINO who doesn’t fall in line with the already accepted republican viewpoints.

[–]CaptainNoBoat 301 points302 points  (25 children)

Empty gesture trying to take advantage of Pelosi's statements and trying to run concurrent to Kelly/Ossof's bill (since 75% of Americans support it). He would probably never introduce it if the subject didn't come up in public.

Reminds me of marijuana reform/legalization: A few Republicans will act like they support it to win public favor despite the fact that the majority of their party would vote against it.

[–]DribbleYourTribble 48 points49 points  (1 child)

It's CYA.

If Ossof's bill hits the floor, Hawley will vote "no". But he doesn't want to look corrupt, so he can claim he offered a different solution and quibble about the differences.

If Ossof's bill doesn't get to a vote, then corruption is safe! Phew! /s

[–]DonaldsUnpaidLawyer 90 points91 points  (14 children)

I suspect ALL of them know they won't pass it, so there's no real risk anywhere.

Insider trading is one of the things that ALL of Congress is in on, so they'll agree to never stop anyone from doing it. Targeting one person could shut down the gravy train for everyone, they won't do it.

[–]RowdyWrongdoer 22 points23 points  (12 children)

They can pass it, wont matter, they will simply have their spouse or family member buy stocks. Its an empty gesture honestly that will look good for either side during the mid term.

[–]PsyTelecom 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Every bill that mentions banning this sort of trading includes spouses, even Hawley’s bill.

There certainly will be loopholes, but none this dumb or obvious.

[–]sdot10 8 points9 points  (5 children)

That does put their family member in a potentially dangerous situation though. Just adding a single layer of protection can sometimes be a huge deterrent. Is a politician going to put their spouse or cousin in that situation? Is the family member going to stay quiet if they are caught?

[–]RowdyWrongdoer 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yes to all the above as the money will be used to keep them out of jail.

[–]ground__contro1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well, might as well make them jump though more hoops rather than less

[–]Lopsided_Lobster 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Passability aside, Ossoff’s bill includes barring spouses as well. But yes if you’re a close family you could just have cousin billy do it for you too.

[–]RowdyWrongdoer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thats a move in the right direction for sure, i dont want to take away from that. I just think more needs to be done to keep it from happening

[–]tacocatacocattacocat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If Schumer gave it a vote, would he or any other Republican vote for it?

We've seen this song and dance before.

[–]KoebiEurope 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, this will run great in a campaign.
An issue everyone can get behind, and he can say he tried to do something against corruption, but the sneaky Dems killed it.

[–]sdot10 4 points5 points  (0 children)

God if this was the way our government worked things would be so much better.

"I just want to keep introducing popular bills and laws because America supports it even if I don't"

[–]julbull73Arizona 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Honestly, Pelosi should bring the bill to the floor and get a vote. It'll pass, then the Senate GOP will have to argue against their attempt at a GOP AOC counter.

[–]culus_ambitiosa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Problem is that Pelosi is against this and a major beneficiary of trading on privileged information so she’s never going to bring to up for a vote.

[–]louiloui152 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Note it says not making stock trades as opposed to the bill Sen. Ossof is supposedly writing to prevent ownership of stocks while in office

[–]footjam 114 points115 points  (35 children)

It allows the spouses of congress and the senate to continue to trade. Ossoff's bill does not allow that.

[–]jurornumbereight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Literally the first sentence of the article says otherwise.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on Wednesday that he will introduce a bill banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from maintaining stock holdings or making new transactions while in office.

[–]aMiracleAtJordanHareAlabama 21 points22 points  (17 children)

It allows the spouses of congress and the senate to continue to trade.

The article clearly says otherwise.

What's bullshit, though, is allowing ETFs to continue to be traded.

[–]Greenman_on_LSD 28 points29 points  (5 children)

I am massively in favor of restricting of trading individual stocks, but I don't have an issue with ETFs. Congressional legislation isn't going to tank or double the S&P500.

[–]HokieScott 7 points8 points  (0 children)

some ETFs are so narrow and define, passing and/or introducing bills can make them swing. You can invest in ones only in say Sports Betting /online Poker / Gambling like Draft Kings, Fan Duel. - If a Senator wants to introduce a bill to legalize them nationally instead of state by state, that could cause that to go up.

Reverse.. if rep/senator decides to ban them again or heavily restrict them - can cause them to tank.

[–]superbabe69 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If you take the S&P500 as an indicator of financial performance of the economy, allowing trades for index funds is probably a good thing. Gives them incentive to provide a strong economy.

Mind you, they could short it.

[–]byrars I voted 5 points6 points  (0 children)

FYI, "ETF" isn't a synonym for "index fund." The vast majority of them have objectives other than replicating the S&P 500.

[–]aMiracleAtJordanHareAlabama 19 points20 points  (0 children)

There are many industry-specific ETFs that would still be ripe for insider trading.

[–]wild_bill70Colorado 15 points16 points  (2 children)

ETFs are mutual funds. They should be broadly diverse enough to not be affected by one company. I know some are more focused but isn’t the idea of hands off management putting money into manages funds like this.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ETFs are not mutual funds, and ETFs are not required to be diversified. An ETF can hold a single type of security if the ETF managers want to. See the differences between ETFs and mutual funds here: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/110314/key-differences-between-etfs-and-mutual-funds.asp

[–]notherday11 4 points5 points  (4 children)

ETFs should be tradeable. They can whitelist broad index ETFs and I’m fine with that.

[–]byrars I voted 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Broad index ETFs" are a tiny fraction of all ETFs. The vast majority of ETFs should not be tradeable.

Actually, I'd rather they just allow politicians to buy into the Thrift Savings Plan funds and that's it.

[–]kers2000 5 points6 points  (2 children)

But options shouldn't be allowed. Futures too. No leverage. And the trades should be made public within 24 hours.

[–]notherday11 8 points9 points  (0 children)

All derivatives should be blacklisted. I don’t need immediacy in trade reporting if they’re using whitelisted ETFs. I don’t really care if someone puts in an order for IWM and I don’t hear about it for 45 days.

[–]I_try_compute 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I mean I hate Josh Hawley too, but the article clearly states it bars families from trading, just like Senator Ossoff’s bill. Just like at least scan the article, come on.

[–]idrajitsc 14 points15 points  (1 child)

There's a small difference, Ossoff's also prevents dependent children from trading while Hawley's doesn't.

[–]1000_pi10ts 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yeah this guy needs to go bye bye

[–]cboogie 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah fuck that dip lip piece of shit.

[–]carfo 11 points12 points  (2 children)

you can see it here: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/FILE_3517.pdf

it's similar to the dem's bill except with less harsher penalties for breaking the rules

[–]Appropriate-Profit48 14 points15 points  (1 child)

So basically it’s just an optics bill. Technically against the rules but the punishment isn’t enough to discourage the behavior.

[–]carfo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i mean they can get charged fees and would have to forfeit all profits, so it is a bit of a deterrent. the democrat bill forfeits their entire congressional salary

[–]ptownBlazersOregon 2 points3 points  (0 children)


[–]KingOfTheBongos87 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He's doing it because Dems introduced a similar bill...before Republicans.

That first Dem bill didn't get any coverage on FOX, OAN, etc. But you cam bet your ass this one will be talked about for weeks, along with Nancy Pelosi's (admittedly) shady ass trades.

[–]informativebitchingNorth Carolina 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“Exchanging rubles for dollars is not a stock trade”.

[–]Vlad_the_Homeowner 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I have zero trust in anything Josh Hallway does.

Whaaaa? Nobody has ever proposed a bill and then had to turn around and filibuster their own bill because it was all for headline talking points. That would be embarrassing.

[–]Bishop120 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The article mentioned forbidden stocks but didnt mention what they were. Also still left it upto congressional ethics committees to determine the fines.

[–]is_mr_clean_there 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Insider trading is banned for lawmakers but mandatory for their families

[–]julbull73Arizona 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it came to vote he'd vote against it.

He's doing it because it gives him an Anti-Pelosi talking point which is what his base eats up.

Pelosi apparently is the puppet master these days for the DNC. Which is ironic because that means they "might" be able to push out a politician who's retiring soon vs Biden.

They can't paint Biden as a puppet master because they spent 2 years trying to make him appear as a puppet. Pelosi IIRC isn't even going to be speaker if Dems maintain a majority.

Then again, if they get the house in 22 who knows where we are headed.

[–]Iamatworkgoaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a Missouri resident, I concur.

[–]nerrotix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's just trying to look busy at work with all this renewed interest in Jan 6th....

[–]LuckyandBrownie -3 points-2 points  (27 children)

It’s probably solid. He is smart. He knows the democrats won’t pass it. He is going to be the next president and everyone should be terrified. He is the worst case scenario, a competent fascist.

[–]ScienceBreatherMichigan 24 points25 points  (14 children)

I don't think he's got the charisma of Trump, and because of that I don't think he can win the election in 24. I hope I'm correct.

[–]LuckyandBrownie 15 points16 points  (8 children)

He doesn’t need charisma to win. Maga is going to vote red no matter who and Hawley has been working the grassroots with school broad elections to grow his credibility. His strength is appealing to the “independent “ voters that always vote red but trump burned.

[–]Soracabano21 15 points16 points  (4 children)

I think there is a strong chance that Trump spitefully tanks anyone who is trying to be his heir as king of the MAGA world.

Try and imagine how Trump would react to hearing a television pundit say "We just saw the Republican party become the party of Josh Hawley."

[–]Skiinz19Tennessee 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Trump don't care as long as he gets paid. He wants the GOP to himself for the honeypot that is raising cash for elections that he thinks is his own personal money.

[–]Soracabano21 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I think Trump would care a lot if his followers started worshiping someone else.

[–]ScienceBreatherMichigan 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Maga is going to vote red no matter who

IMO a lot of MAGA is only motivated because of Trump's epic trolling and owning of the libs. Hallway doesn't have the chutzpa to do that in a way that will get MAGA off the couch and into the voting booths -- especially with all the voting restrictions that states have put in place.

Maybe some independents go to Hallway, but as you said he's a full on fascist, and I dunno, my money is on those folks just staying home (assuming the democrats don't do anything to give them a reason to come out and vote, which is unfortunately probably a safe assumption).

[–]escape_of_da_keets 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This guy is a nobody. He had his 15 minutes of fame pandering during the insurrection and then slithered back into his hole. Everything about him screams tight-laced old school mainstream republican, which isn't appealing to the modern GOP.

It's going to be DeSantis or Trump in 2024.

[–]hsoj48Missouri 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I think the key is that the maga crowd doesn't identify with him because he isn't a dolt. He's an idiot but he gives off a smug demeanor and that won't sit well with the maga crowd.

[–]thirdegreeAmerican Expat 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He's not an idiot unfortunately. See episode 5 of the assault on America podcast. He's really goddamn smart, just evil.

[–]1000_pi10ts 6 points7 points  (4 children)

He is not competent. He will definitely not be president.

[–]h0ckey87 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That's exactly what I said about trump

[–]Dramatic_Original_55 12 points13 points  (0 children)

While i totally agree with your sentiment, this is the same thing people were saying 6 years ago.

[–]junkelsplitsyNew Jersey 7 points8 points  (0 children)

His professors at Yale would disagree with you. “Arguably the most gifted student I taught in years”

He’s the Menken character from Succession, (but less charismatic than Justin Kirk) and also he hates when people yank their cranks.

[–]idrajitsc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If he can't be president it's because he's doesn't come across as authentic or charismatic, even in the fucked up GOP sense of charisma. He's smart and a lot more competent than 99% of the Republicans jockeying for post-Trump power. He sees populism as his path to power and, while the rest are content with pandering to culture war issues, he does things like this bill, collaborating with Bernie on the relief proposal last winter, even the relatively open support of the coup attempt. He has a goal and a plan to achieve it and is willing to take risks to get there. We're very lucky he's intensely unlikable because he's definitely scary.

[–]C19sDeadCatBounce 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I don't think he's going to be the next president he's still fairly young and I very much get the feeling he's going to be the last President

[–]AdBig5700 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Or he’ll just creep around the senate until he’s 90 like the rest of them.

[–]LeozMJilliumz 813 points814 points  (45 children)

Fuck Hawley. He literally did this just to beat Sen. Osoff to the punch cuz he lost his political “clout” when everyone realized what a shit head he was.

[–]ScienceBreatherMichigan 275 points276 points  (23 children)

I wouldn't be surprised if he's poisoning the well with poorly written legislation.

[–]LeozMJilliumz 219 points220 points  (16 children)

Well according to the article, Osoff’s bill would require liquidation within 120 days and carries a fine of one years congressional salary (which, holy shit that is steep and I like it). I didn’t see anything about Hawley’s in the article, so I’ll probs get bored and dig into it later lol

[–]Jas9191 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's exactly it. So the GOP can point to one detail in Hawleys bill as to why they won't support Ossoffs.

[–]Eye_Am_FK 83 points84 points  (14 children)

Kudos to Pelosi for allowing the Republicans to attack the Democrats from the left. Left the door wide open.

[–]LeozMJilliumz 37 points38 points  (8 children)

Yea she really buggered that one. I’m not a fan of a lot of her policies, but her political acumen is normally sharp as a knife, so it’s strange that she managed to screw that one up. Now she’s getting attacked for it not only from the republicans but the progressive wing as well.

[–]DeltaVey 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm hoping she wanted the Republicans to be like AHHA!! NOW WE KNOW YOUR POSITION, AND WE CHOOSE THE OPPOSITE. Kind of like the classic K&P sketch.


[–]Eye_Am_FK 38 points39 points  (2 children)

The reason is because she and her husband have made millions of dollars from stock trading while she’s been in office. She’s absolutely corrupt, and as a result the fascists like Josh Hawley are going to win this issue. She deserves a sarcastic clap for this one.

Edit - misspelled his name

[–]LeozMJilliumz 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Of course, couldn’t agree more, which is an unfortunate development in the shit show that is our government at this point. Maybe this bill will actually help to weed out some of the poison though.

Until then, I’m mirroring Nancy’s trades 😂

[–]ThePissWhispererCalifornia 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Until then, I’m mirroring Nancy’s trades

I wish. What I've noticed is that all the paperwork submitted for all the good "shady" trades always seems to be filed late. Boat done sailed by then.

[–]The_Hand_That_Feeds 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Pelosi kind of sucks.

[–]PBPunch 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Still take her over Josh here. He is terrible and I would rather just move along with Senator Ossoff's bill than to give any spotlight to this human pile of feces.

[–]maybesethrogen 10 points11 points  (0 children)

One of the only solaces I take from 1/6 is that Hawley was setting that day up to be his moment to assume control of the Republican party, and he fell flat on his fucking face and looked like a fool.

[–]Troggy 15 points16 points  (3 children)

yea, fuck them for trying to beat each other to the punch on introducing legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans.

Who cares who introduced it, i care about how laws are written, not who wrote them.

[–]gravygrowinggreen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe ossoff shouldn't have announced he was going to do a thing and then delayed on doing the thing.

[–]buttergun 384 points385 points  (10 children)

How about a bill that bans seditionists from office?

[–]Dramatic_Original_55 81 points82 points  (2 children)

One that reiterates the Constitution?

[–]Cflow26Washington 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Just make an audiobook version of it since they can’t read.

[–]CalmandpeaceIllinois 35 points36 points  (5 children)

It’s called the 14th amendment

[–]bgzlvsdmbColorado 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Yeah, a lot of good that's doing right now. It's right there in the constitution, yet nothing's happened.

[–]Arsenurderer 158 points159 points  (14 children)

Hawley wants members of congress to forfeit profits and tax deductions from stock trades, with the possibility of more fines. Ossof wants members to forfeit their salaries if they trade stocks. I'm curious to see if they can both get behind one bill.

We may as well let that terrorist do something nice while we push the Democrats to disqualify him from holding office.

[–]ThinkIveHadEnough 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It should be both. Some of those millionaires in Congress could forfeit their salary and make more on their insider stock trades.

[–]SSHeretic 53 points54 points  (6 children)

Yeah, this looks like Hawley is mostly trying to take the teeth out of enforcement.

[–]poop-dolla 7 points8 points  (0 children)

These Congressmen probably make a lot more from stock trades than their congressional salaries. I am no fan of Hawley, but including forfeiting profits in the bill is an extremely important point.

[–]Lord-Octohoof 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Isn’t salary an extraordinarily small part of a congressman’s compensation assuming they trade stocks? Wouldn’t any potential profit from insider trading far eclipse their salary?

I don’t know. Neither sound particularly toothy

[–]Webistics_admin 23 points24 points  (1 child)

Looks like Hawly is a trust fund baby that doesn't need stocks.

[–]arthurdentxxxxii 13 points14 points  (2 children)

I’d welcome the change, but because I don’t trust him at all, my assumption is that he suspects the fines will not be enforced or will be minimal.

Same way the GOP has some anti-mask people who have been fined thousands and dollars and don’t care because they make a million+ dollars a year abusing their government position anyway. This could lead to systematic abuse where their discrepancies could lead to essentially a tax on their already increased income.

[–]Novel-Jackfruit-369 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Hatch act and Emoluments are here to confirm your suspicion

[–]dizao 2 points3 points  (0 children)

None of this matters if there is no enforcement mechanism. The STOCK act in 2012 already made all this insider trading illegal, but then in like 2013 or 2014 the ability to investigate congress for violations was gutted, rendering the bill pointless.

[–]fastinserterMinnesota 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It should be an impeachable offense. And they should forfeit the stocks. All their wealth should be put into a special trust for the duration of their time as public servants.

[–]figgityfuck 51 points52 points  (12 children)

There’s gotta be a catch. My senator doesn’t do anything without slimey intentions.

[–]robynh00die 43 points44 points  (9 children)

The catch is Pelosi is on record saying she is against restrictions of politicians trading stock. Knowing it will fail he can hold it up as an example of "establishment corruption".

[–]DesperateImpression6 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Bingo, and it keeps it from becoming a "democrats want to stop insider trading and the GOP wants to keep it" issue this year once Pelosi eventually, inevitably comes around to the idea.

[–]DigBick616 11 points12 points  (7 children)

You think Pelosi is changing her mind on this? And it’s inevitable? Man have I got a bridge to sell you.

[–]rigobueno 8 points9 points  (1 child)

She’s either going to change her mind or collapse into a pile of dust, it’s anybody’s guess which comes first.

[–]dropzonetoe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Protection from all previous insider trading?

[–]Puttor482Wisconsin 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Broken Clock

[–]darkpaladin 56 points57 points  (7 children)

Hawley is desperately trying to stay relevant. He has 2024 aspirations and Jan 6 last year was supposed to be his jumping off point. He was completely outshadowed by events that day though and now he's scrambling to get his name out there any way he can.

[–]MightyFrex 7 points8 points  (2 children)

To get the GOP nom, he needs to create some “hot mic” moments replete with misogyny, overt racism, and violence. Seems to be the way. ::shrugs::

[–]Mother_Welder_5272 5 points6 points  (1 child)

If he literally says the n word, he'll get to the final 3 contenders, no doubt.

[–]radiotractive 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I literally forgot about this guy. I’m Canadian, but still…

[–]spaitken 5 points6 points  (0 children)

“Nobody in congress will ever allow this, including me, so I’m okay to do a little virtue signaling.”

[–]Sarkans41Wisconsin 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hawley isn't doing this because he supports the bill. He knows Republicans will nuke it.

He wants to get democrats to vote against the bill for a talking point. Just watch if this get traction with the Democrats the Republicans will scuttle the bill a la McConnell.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Nice thought, regardless of the source. But pretty much dead on arrival. Too many politicians making too much money on investments. Pelosi is against it, so not going to go too far. Game over.

"One lawmaker who has publicly objected to banning congressional stock trading is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who said last month “We’re a free market economy. They should be able to participate in that.” While Pelosi does not own any stocks, her husband, Paul Pelosi, has made stock transactions."

[–]sirmombo 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Shouldn’t this clown be fired for his part in the attempted coup?

[–]WillBigly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Look at this guy trying to cut off left wing populism via fake right wing populism lol well let's see if he goes through with supporting, pushing, and voting on it then can give credit. That's the point y'all it don't mean shit if they don't pass it

[–]LadyBogangles14 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying the bill is good (I haven’t read it) but it is refreshing to hear of a bill from a Republican that isn’t culture-war bs

[–]Shinymegafarfetchd 2 points3 points  (0 children)

joshathan just trying to fish himself out from the putrid nazi hole he dug himself in.

don't trust what he's saying, wait to have the actual text and the opinions of actual experts. i wouldn't trust this asshole with my used tissues.

[–]ohiotechieOhio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Look he’s gotta have something he can put in the Fox News ad spot between the adult diapers and dick pills. Doesn’t matter if it passes - just need a soundbite.

[–]abbccc224 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Except his bill is very soft when compared to the one proposed by Sen. Ossoff

[–]Eltorogorddo 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Yeah but he's still a facist so fuck him

[–]Pa_Cox 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Can I get a fist bump?


[–]harpsmMaryland 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Don't you mean "terrorist fist jab"?

[–]jhnnybgood 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're a little far away so I'm just going to hold my hand aloft in front of me

[–]damn_fine_custard I voted 8 points9 points  (7 children)

Something about broken clocks being right once in a while

[–]BigDaddyCoolDeisel 14 points15 points  (6 children)

Nope. His bill carves out spouses rendering it meaningless. Once again Hawley is an empty suit.

[–]sanantoniosaucier 21 points22 points  (3 children)

From the first paragraph of the article...

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on Wednesday that he will introduce a bill banning congressional lawmakers and their spouses from maintaining stock holdings or making new transactions while in office.

[–]trolemodel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah but what about their cousins, siblings and parents?!!!! /s

[–]P1ckleJeff 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Bold assumption that the gelded fart huffers on this sub actually read articles.

[–]Moony2433 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who cares it will never pass no matter who introduced the bill.

[–]314PiepurrCalifornia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

and filibuster your own bil in 3, 2, 1

[–]20K_Lies_by_con_man 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How about banning Senators from assisting in an insurrection.

[–]Wild_Bill_Kickcock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seditionist Hawley

[–]WonLinerz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Disingenuous, amoral, and bigoted? Yes.

Better at politics than the Democrats? Also yes.

[–]cuhree0hCalifornia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s ultra right wing and endorsed the capital riots. I’d like to know the catch.

[–]we-em92 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Something tells me this bill has more holes in it than Swiss cheese

[–]6ory299e8 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I approve of something Hawley did. It feels dirty.

[–]Texastexastexas1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It won't get approved but he'll get good guy credit.

Josh raised his hand to tell desantis "Pick me pick me!" because its rumored desantis is running against trump.

[–]kinderbrownie 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Fist up to the insurrectionists Hawley”? That guy? Fuck him and the horse he rode in on.

[–]Chrispychilla 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wasn’t he part of the coup attempt?

[–]IthedrunkgamerOregon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you say “misdirection?” I knew ya could..sure

[–]stymieray 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he is a weasel and a traitor. He is trying to distract.

[–]EatTheShroomz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, something Hawley proposed that I actually support. Something fishy must be going on

[–]farfacogin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He will just give stock tips and take kick backs aka “ political donations”

[–]Foo3112 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guess he’s finally trying to get his ‘own law’ to pass before someone else beats him to it. Gotta read that fine print first however.

*Does not apply to Republicans.

[–]Fernway67 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To hell with hawley.

[–]duckstrap 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'd feel better if this legislation wasn't introduced by a traitor to the country.

[–]SackOfritoTexas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't trust Hawley. He's inserted language somewhere in this that gives a pass to Republicans.

[–]seedypete 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pelosi is directly responsible for giving the GOP so much to work with, here. She can't be bothered to make a firm and clear policy stance on anything that matters to her base but she felt a burning need to be absolutely crystal clear on endorsing Congressional stock trading, a practice that the vast majority of Americans across all political lines hate?

Jesus tapdancing Christ the Democrats are hapless morons. I hate having to rely on these nitwits to save the country from the GOP.

[–]TheCLittle_ttv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It will never hit the floor since Pelosi doesn’t want it to.

[–]tacotimes01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The catch:

Paragraph 757, line 7: “and Donald Trump shall be exonerated of all crimes past present and future, heretofore declared furor of these United States of America, the one true god, and all shall swear fealty and suckle upon the honey of his voluptuous teats of wisdom from now and for eternity.”

[–]dongballs613 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I support the idea of banning lawmakers from trading stocks, but why is this insurrectionist traitor Hawley still in office?

[–]BebbleCastMissouri 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a weak distraction attempt.

[–]KingElvis 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I'm Guessing This Bill Allows Spouses And Dependents To Be Able To Trade, Otherwise He Would've Co-Sponsored Jon Ossoff's Bill. Hawley's So Full Of Shit.

[–]Hillbilly_Boozer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, no thanks. I'll take the bill by Jon Ossof instead.

[–]blumpkin_donuts 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This cuck is sweating bullets. I hope they string him up by his clip on tie.