Submitted by turbulance4 t3_10l4mvs in springfieldMO
exhusband2bears t1_j5um8ro wrote
Reply to comment by turbulance4 in Hawley introduces Pelosi Act banning lawmakers from trading stocks by turbulance4
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.
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.
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.
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.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uuxmj wrote
you can read the text of the bill. Trust isn't required.
exhusband2bears t1_j5uw0l6 wrote
Show me on the doll where I said I'm in favor of government corruption.
turbulance4 OP t1_j5uxadg wrote
The part where you stood against a bill to stop insider trading by congresspeople
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?
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments