I know everyone hates this guy here. But can we set aside that hate long enough to support this bill?

[deleted]

Nope. He's trolling.

I'm all for a similar bill, so long as it's: a) written by a legislator who didn't cheer on the insurrection, and b) not some kind of bad right-wing meme bullshit.

Very good idea. Next should be the Hawley Act which would ban insurrectionists from holding federal office.

The person who wrote the bill is more important than a good bill passing?

I would support a bill banning insurrectionists from holding federal office. I don't really care about the name, the language is what's important.

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.

Oh, I agree. I was just fighting performative bullshit with performative bullshit.

And this is the problem.

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.

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.

The name is actually the 14th Amendment.

[deleted]

I agree. The name could have been better. I mean, Pelosi is pretty well known as the worst violator of insider trading... But I'd prefer if Hawley left room for bipartisanship instead of slapping the Dems in the face.

It's people like you, both on the left and the right, that are the problem with our country right now. Can't see the forest through the partisan trees.

One of these days Joshy’s little Nazbol act is gonna bite him in the ass. This bill’s a bluff, but I hope Dems call him on it, because we desperately need this ban.

This guy should be in prison not writing laws!!!!

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.

This is a surprisingly good thing to come from this pos, I’m kinda suspicious about it but hey, I’ll take what I can get???

The problem is the name is all that will keep it in the news. It might make it out of committee, but it will never pass on the floor regardless of the name.

These money grabbers will never vote against their own personal interests...I hope to be proven wrong.

I understand he cheered a group of people outside the Capitol (?) building, before that same group decided to break into the building and try to disrupt the electoral process. I don't understand why people are saying he should be in prison for that. It's not illegal to cheer a group, and it's reasonable to assume he didn't know what they were about to do.

Did he do something else I'm not aware of?

Does "call him on it" mean pass the bill in this case?

Of course.

you can read the text of the bill. Trust isn't required.

Can you link to a source that shows her being the worst violator?

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

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?

I'm not actually trying to make that claim (although it may be true). I am claiming she is the most well known for being an inside trader. In other words, her name shows up most in news headlines and whatnot about it. She has the name recognition for this particular form of corruption.

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

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.

> No, we're all better off with a bill like this coming from anyone else.

No. Who authors the bill is irrelevant.

[deleted]

He urged on a coup attempt and you don't find that a problem?

You're Republican, then.

You seem to have failed to comprehend my previous comment. Please read it again.

> You're Republican, then. Trump fan? Think the election was stolen?

No, no, and no.

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

Christ almighty you people are so silly.

He did not urge a coup. I’ll change my mind if you can provide irrefutable evidence of this claim.

Dorp the word irrefutable. If some good evidence is provided I'd look into it. Something more than "he shook his fist to a crowd before that crowd did anything illegal"

That’s all the evidence they have. He didn’t do anything that would rise anywhere close to incitement.

Didn't he already vote against a previous bill that would have done the exact same thing?

Traitors gonna traitor. I don't see you Trump fans ever admitting it was a violent attack to stop the certification of a fair election.

I'm unaware of this.

But the violent attack on the capitol to stop the certification of a fair election and keep Trump in power isn't a coup?

Why do you guys always lie about who you support?

You literally made that claim. Read your own comment again.

Her name shows up most on alt-right blogs and propaganda sites, I'll agree to that. The left isn't obsessed with her.

[removed]

It was a violent attempt that failed at overturning the election.

If you thought 500 people could overturn an election without guns, you’re being very silly.

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.

No

He is virtue signaling that he is a "populist", by proposing something that has less than zero chance of happening.

My apologies if I typed it out poorly and you misunderstood. I did not mean to make that claim.

Are these "alt-right blogs and propaganda sites"?

Business Insider

The NY Post

The Hill

CBS News

Forbes

I support both of these bills

How long until it comes out that Josh Hawley has amassed a huge stock trading portfolio while in office?

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?

Because nobody, even him, is seriously interested in cutting off their ability to put their hands in the cookie jar.

This is grandstanding. It's something the American citizen desperately needs, and that no elected official on either side of the isle has any motivation to fulfill.

Again your reading comprehension is quite lacking. At no point did is say it wasn't a coup. I said Hawley "cheered" the crowd before it was clear what they were going to do. Your criticism amounts to nothing more than him once slightly moving his fist in a way you didn't like.

Now, if I'm uniformed about something.. if he was proven in some way to be more involved in orchestrating the (pathetic attempt at a) coup.. please let me know.

A few thoughts

• Fuck Josh Hawley
• Fuck Josh Hawley especially for the name of the bill - Pelosi is one of many
• I love the concept of banning congress from owning stock
• I am suspicious as fuck about the actual wording/intention of the bill/what else is in it

he will still vote no on it.

ps check the bill doesnt allow straw purchases through spouses and inlaws.

After they made their millions. Seems right

The text of the bill is easy to find if you google. It prevents purchases by members and spouses, and has a carve out allowing a "blind trust." Could members still get around it by going further out the family chain than spouses? Probably. But some restrictions are better than none.

> I am suspicious as fuck about the actual wording/intention of the bill/what else is in it

You can find the actual text of the bill with a simple google if you are interested in reading.

“blind trust” is meaningless without a definition of what that is written into the bill.

again you can read the text, I saw a definition section when I skimmed it.

Don’t let it fool you, Andrew Tate did the same thing, spout crazy bullshit, go dark, do something good to win back people, wash and repeat

Googling this, thought this was interesting, the bill Democrats tried to pass to do the same thing back in 2022 https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-text-nancy-pelosi-house-democrats-stock-trading-ban-2022-9

Actual text of current bill. Just like most contracts I don't feel like I understand this verbiage correctly enough without interpretation from someone that actually does this for a living. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8990/text

Fuck Traitor Hawley

Nice contribution. I'll spend a few hours trying to understand your position.

There's already another bipartisan bill regarding this that's failed twice and has been introduced for a 3rd time. Joshy boy is just looking for some pub.

Maybe the Hawley Act should prevent politicians from running for office while living in a different state. He cheats by using his sister's address in Ozark. He should not be able to represent our state when he absolutely does not reside here.

I'd show my support for either. If Hawley can get it to a vote, more power to him. If whoever sponsored the one you mention can, more power to them too.

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?

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."

Even though I am generally conservative I dislike Hawley (almost) as much as most of the liberals on this site. But this is a good thing here.

Like you I am not really a fan of the name because it makes it sound like a joke and dials up the partisanship when in reality it's not a partisan issue. Automatically makes it a non-starter for most if not every democrat and that's unfortunate.

But you are right it will never get any traction and the fact that it won't get traction just underscores how corrupt and self serving politicians generally are.

In all reality this is probably just another political stunt by this guy to generate some headlines and buzz and keep his name in the spotlight.

Well said. Credibility lost at first sight of the title is a prime red flag for clout chasing. Simply enact change. We don't need to see which side is snickering at said change, you're all capable of it which is where we should draw the line.

That seems to be the consensus from the pass the bill grime

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.

Hawley generally sucks but has some good little guy moves like this

from you first link:

> While the House leadership bill is driven by top Democrats, some notable Republicans have, in principle, supported the idea of a congressional stock ban; Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep.

So he did support it before. Unlike what a few others have implied in this thread. Like u/Lachet

Also your 2nd link is not the current bill but the previous one. Here is the current one: https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/LEW23036.pdf

No implication; I'd heard something along those lines and thought I'd ask. The bill in the article was introduced, but never voted on. Also, the addition of "in principle" does a lot of heavy lifted in that quoted chunk.

Agreed! Fuck Josh Hawley!

Just curious, what do you dislike about Hawley? I have heard enough from all the liberals on this sub about how horrible he his, but I haven't heard it from a conservative perspective.

It doesn’t even do what it claims to do. It’s like a Swiss cheese of family exemptions and carve outs for blind trusts. Completely performative, just like everything else this fascist prick does.

Well...for starters I just find his slick ivy league persona to be slimy and prototypical politician who carefully curates his positions and statements based on what is most likely to propel him up the next rung in the ladder. On that note - everyone knew he had bigger ambitions when he first ran for statewide office and still he denied/lied about it.

I don't hate all his positions, I just don't care for him as a politician because I think he is too into making waves and big splashy scenes. I believe his one and only motive is advancing his career as far as he possibly can - I just don't see him as a public servant, maybe I'm wrong. In my opinion the left hates him for much of the same reason the right so vehemently hates AOC. Yeah the positions are trash but all the talk and attention getting on top of it just makes it unbearable.

Most conservative people I know don't really seem to view him as a very useful or productive senator. But they would vote for him vs someone who will go along with Biden and the democrats.

Sorry OP, you’re either disingenuous, or not smart enough to see what this bill doesn’t do. It allows stock and security trading through a blind trust, except, we all know that people who are fine with insider trading aren’t going to play by those rules. This whole bill is designed for one thing, “owning the libs,” which it doesn’t do, because even a cursory reading reveals it to be utter garbage, and not capable of preventing the most basic corruption. Pair that with the fact that Hawley is a seditious piece of shit, and you have a recipe for…absolutely nothing of consequence.

The previous bill sponsored by the Dems (text) also had carve outs for a "blind trust." What else did your cursory reading tell you that it is utter garbage?

I never really thought about it like that, but he does seem like the other side of the coin from AOC.

Except AOC just wants to give you Healthcare and stop polluting the planet. Not extreme things at all.

Last I saw she was the 5th best trader in congress with 4 other republicans ahead of her. With Dan Crenshaw either 4th or 6th on the list.

> insurrectionists

Funny, that law already exists. It's even written into the existing law that you cannot hold office post conviction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383

'Someone should make it a LAW!'
They already did. Try google.

If you hold such strong beliefs you should really spend 30 seconds looking first at what already exists. Just saying.

She does because of her husband. She gets a lot of the headlines for it but she's typically not at the top herself, her husband is.

https://unusualwhales.com/politics

Unusual whales is the biggest tracker of all of this and they call it the Pelosi metric for a reason, but there's plenty of Republican Congressional members who take part as well. This isn't one sided at all.

Congress members and their immediate families should not be allowed to trade while they're in office. If they need to make 150 million dollars like what the Pelosis are worth, they can retire.

She is just saying those things for the publicity, exactly as many are claiming about Hawley in this thread.

[deleted]

No, there are people in govt that want better social programs and the govt to actually help people. Just because republicans don't, doesn't mean you need to project that shit on the opposite side.

You're putting so many words in my mouth, you should buy me dinner first.

> Next should be the Hawley Act which would ban insurrectionists from holding federal office.

Your words

> shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

USC law.

You want a new law to do something an existing law already does. That's not 'putting words in your mouth'. It's pointing out your lack of knowledge.

Downvotes also don't make that less true. Sorry.
The existing law is fine.

> Just because republicans don't

You seriously think all Republicans are bad faith? And the only ones actually interested in helping are Dems?

Why do you think both bills can’t be garbage?

He was one of the first Senators to object to the certification and continued that objection even after they resumed the certification after the MAGGAT INSURRECTION. He’s a lying ass traitor that should be in prison!

Previously you said:

> This whole bill is designed for one thing, “owning the libs,”

So do you also think the previous bill was designed to "own the Republicans"?

He should go to prison for objecting? Isn't that kind of what politicians are supposed to do?

That statement is clearly just referring to this particular bill, by the shit stain Hawley. Look at the name of the bill. You can’t possibly make the case that “owning the libs” isn’t the point. The previous bill was performative though. Make an attempt to look like you’re trying to curb corruption without really doing anything. I’m not going to reply all night. Contribute to the conversation by asking interesting questions or don’t expect a response.

It was what his objection was….it was all about it being a stolen election and that Joe Biden was not actually elected. He urged on the “Big Lie” that instigated the deadly violence and continued it even after he himself ran from the mob he helped create! He’s a coward and a traitor!

Are you feeling OK? Have a bad day? I've been there, man. You seem to be dedicating a lot of time and energy over a cheeky comment that took me all of 30 seconds to write. If you want to go have a beer or something and chill out, let me know.

Yeah I would say 99% of Republicans don't give af about Americans at all. There's plenty of corporate dems that also don't give af as well but there are democrats that do actually care. Elizabeth Warren trying to cap interest rates on credit cards is another example. The only reason I say 99% is because I'm sure there's 1 or 2 Republicans somewhere that have a decent take on something but those people won't ever see the light of day. It's Marjorie Taylor green, Lauren boebert, and DeSantis show now. Absolute psychopaths.

[deleted]

I don't think you should take the position that politicians should go to jail for claiming an election was stolen. Plenty of Dems have made this claim as well.

In the same sense that everyone charged with a crime should have a right to a lawyer, politicians should have the right to challenge an election (even when they are clearly wrong).

This is the legislative equivalent of him wearing blue jeans and a flannel shirt in a campaign ad. He's as much a populist as I am a secret millionaire.

Brah. Ain't nobody keeping you here.

What’s his angle?

And their spouses right, RIGHT?

Yes.

way i heard it was he didnt fully support other versions because it banned members, immediate family/spouses and secondary relatives.

this bill doesnt say anything about secondary family members.

so he could still have his brother in law trade on whatever.

and their secondary relatives?

I’m not a conservative but I agree and echo your sentiments. My problem with Josh is that he doesn’t seem to be trying to help his constituents. He rails against big tech and neoconservatism. He is always quick to trash the other side and hate on democrats but I don’t see him putting in any real work for the people of Missouri. He doesn’t seem to have a good agenda and rather seems to pursue aggressive sound bites. I think he is trying to position himself and his wife as the all American, wholesome family…a cleaned up version of Trump. It doesn’t come off as genuine at all.

[removed]

Heartbreaking: Worst Person You Know Just Made A Good Point

Lmaoooooo what a reply

Upvote farming simulator - just write “Hawley is bad” on any portion of this thread and rake them in!

1/6

>Fuck Josh Hawley especially for the name of the bill - Pelosi is one of many

Why? Yes, Pelosi is one of many politician inside traders, but she was third in line to be president and the third most powerful politician in the country (arguably second since the VP is a figurehead) for like a zillion years. Her insider trading is much more egregious than some nobody Congressman from Idaho. She had much more control over what legislation gets pushed and voted on and how it affected the market. And if there’s a politician who’s made more from insider trading than Pelosi, I’m not aware of it. She absolutely deserves her name on the bill far and above anyone else.

The name on the bill is only to point a spotlight at this stuff anyway. It never did and never will have a chance in hell of passing.

It is disingenuous to portray the naming of the bill as anything other than a political swipe at the left.

Um, dude, maybe it should be political against Pelosi considering she was the second most powerful politician in the US and might be the most prolific inside trader in American history.

There’s no reality where a bill like this can pass right now regardless of how it’s named. Even if Hawley’s motives are shitty, bringing more attention to this issue is nothing but a good thing and is the only way something can ever be done about it someday.

9/11

[removed]

Yeah, and we see how the republicans demanded that tRump be bound by the emoluments clause. This is political grandstanding bullshit and nothing else. Brought to you by the embarrassment that is rural missourah. Remember Roy Blunt wasn’t just figuratively in bed with lobbyists, he was literally in bed with a lobbyist

I didn’t call him a populist I just said he has some good ideas

He’s the same one trying to ban tiktok too

Ok, but is that relevant? I'm asking you to consider this bill and, more importantly, show support for the bill. Does how Hawley feels about tiktok in any way change whether congresspeople should be trading stock while in office?

Where did you hear that from?

Yes, I agree. It soundly counterd the previous comment.

i think it was him speaking to a media scrum at the capitol or maybe on the floor in response to the previous bill. it may have been someone at his office when i called about it. but i remember him talking about how he felt a secondary family member ban was going to far. ill see of i can find it but i have a life to live too.

i read his bill from the link provided by the hill and it says only immediate family members.

it doesnt specify any rules regarding a blind trust other than referencing another law, which is likely full of loopholes and that will need to be addressed too.

the point being this is a gesture in bad faith that im sure a lot of americans would support but its dead on arrival because he and other members make too much money off it, or their wall street friends who make a percentage on the trades wont make campaign donations. cant let that well dry up.

Is it better to have some restrictions (with possible loopholes), or no restrictions?

That's fine, because "pub" is needed to get Congress to vote against their unethical self interests. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I understand the issue you getting at, but I also see the other perspective. For example, if my dad became a senator I'd def feel a little strange that I now was barred from interacting with the stock market.

thems the breaks

edit:

have your senator daddy get you into a nice school instead, or hook you up with a job from a banker buddy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6JqfafRFc

if the restriction has loopholes written into the law by the peopleset to benefit from the loophole is it really a restriction?

if the law is in place but has no teeth, is it worth the paper its written on?

congressional corruption is bigger than their abilities to trade stocks. so the solution needs to be bigger than that.

and again this bill is performative bs, everyone sees it, he is clearly trolling, its going nowhere so why even take it seriously?

Allowing the congress person to personally do the inside trading vs forcing the to recruit their family does add some friction to the corruption.

Add a no running in the hallways addendum.

I'm feeling fine. Yesterday was actually a good day.

The problem is the circlejerk of ignorance and sometimes subreddits go full in and ask for seconds.

Your quip has a complete lack of even basic knowledge of the subject. Jan 6th was over a year ago and you've never once actually looked at federal insurrection law. It's literally a google search.

If you're going to name an insurrection law after someone wouldn't it make even a little bit of sense to actually look at insurrection law?

Oh, and I don't drink.

I'm going to share a little secret with you. I am VERY familiar with The Constitution and the standing laws on this matter. I was doing this whole thing where Hawley was being a disingenious troll, so I did some light trolling back. I didnt think this kind of thread needed a discussion on the nuance of treason laws. Then you showed up and went all "ACKCHYUALLY" on us.

My wife is out of town so I'm home with my two kids with nothing but time to respond to your righteous indignation with more flippant bullshit. You seem like you're super upset about this and it makes me wonder what kind of life you have to have for something so miniscule to matter so much to you?
Man, I wish I had your problems.

I hate that I agree with him on something

at least you can admit you agree, unlike a few others on this thread.

[deleted]

No? Do you have any evidence of his insider trading?

[deleted]

You mean, like ever calling anyone out for anything? Why?

There are about 1000 news articles about Pelosi insider trading. I already linked several elsewhere in this comment section.

Hey by the way it's funny you mentioned Hawley as a populist. I actually trolled Matthew Stoller into blocking me on Twitter, precisely because he tried to portray Hawley as some populist savior. I see through it too.

Matt Stoller is a good read but has some weird political heroes.

That's pretty great.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Yeah Stoller has a really cool substack on monopoly power that I read a lot. I’m subscribed to it, it’s called BIG. But his opinions on a lot of other things are bad imo, which includes Hawley lol

I guess it makes a little sense given Stoller's field and Hawley's signalling about tech monopolies and the like, but Hawley's so transparently self-serving that I'm surprised anyone would be taken in by his act.