1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Instead of banning trading, how about having ALL members of Congress (and immediate family( register all their trades with an independent auditor?  If they want to invest while in Washington, no problem, as long as they dont keep it secret.

Same argument goes for campaign funding and dark money.

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

So, do you agree it's time to stop all stock trading by members of Congress?

Yes, of course.  Members of congress should not be in a position to benefit financially from their policy decisions.

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Same argument goes for campaign funding and dark money.

They're already required to make public their stock trades but what does it matter if their are no restrictions on what trades they can make: There are no insider trading laws for members of congress.

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Same argument goes for campaign funding and dark money.

Spot on, as recent news again highlights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/bankman-fried-turns-toxic-in-congress-even-among-those-he-backed

 

We need this dark money out of politics for good.

Just now, SunnyinBangrak said:

Spot on, as recent news again highlights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/bankman-fried-turns-toxic-in-congress-even-among-those-he-backed

 

We need this dark money out of politics for good.

The only way is to overturn Citizens United in the Supreme Court or by legislation.

2 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

It's been all over the Internet. The stock trades of Paul Pelosi in advance of policy decisions by Congress even  motivated a bill to ban stock trading by congress people and their spouses (A vote was blocked by Pelosi).

 

Just one example:

https://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosi-stock-trades-congress-investments-2022-7

Thank you for the link, but I must have missed the part where Paul Pelosi was investigated by law officials, found guilty as charged and was jailed.

On 11/18/2022 at 4:30 PM, Emdog said:

term limits sounds like a good idea until you think about who would gain power with limits: the lobbyists. No limits on their terms... newbies would be open to influence of them on how to "get things done".... as things are now lobbyists have huge input on the writing of bills. Congress members have to spend inordinate portion of time fund raising for re-election.

We would need campaign finance reform and restrictions on lobbying if term limits would have a chance of a positive outcome

I also support ( and have said so on this forum ) an absolute ban on lobbyists or politicians getting jobs on companies that benefitted during their time in congress.

On 11/18/2022 at 6:33 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Spot on, as recent news again highlights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/bankman-fried-turns-toxic-in-congress-even-among-those-he-backed

 

We need this dark money out of politics for good.

Absolutely. Ban the pacs and all money donated must be visible to scrutiny. A limit on campaign finance would be in order too, as minor parties can't match the big parties.

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Absolutely. Ban the pacs and all money donated must be visible to scrutiny. A limit on campaign finance would be in order too, as minor parties can't match the big parties.

More to help point politicians receive such huge contributions from pacs and corporations that they are controlled by the personal financial benefits.

 

Repeal the perversely named ‘Citizens United’ Act and make publication of personal finances, stock/business holdings and taxes a condition of registration to stand for election.

 

 

On 11/18/2022 at 12:33 PM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Spot on, as recent news again highlights.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/bankman-fried-turns-toxic-in-congress-even-among-those-he-backed

 

We need this dark money out of politics for good.

You can thank the right wingers on the Supreme Court for the influx of dark money.

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More to help point politicians receive such huge contributions from pacs and corporations that they are controlled by the personal financial benefits.

 

Repeal the perversely named ‘Citizens United’ Act and make publication of personal finances, stock/business holdings and taxes a condition of registration to stand for election.

 

 

Citizen United is not a piece of legislation but rather a decision by the Supreme Court that pretty much allowed  monies both dark and public to flow without limits into political advocacy groups. So it can't be repealed.

Pelosi was an awful leader of the house. Her childish behaviour was an embarrassment for US politics, dramatically ripping up Trump's speech like a spoilt teenager was a good example of her poor judgement. Extremely unprofessional. Hopefully her replacement conducts themselves with more grace.

 

Having said that, I wish her a happy retirement. 

 

I'm hearing the camera footage of the attack on her husband may be released shortly, so stepping back from the limelight now might just be great timing if the rumours are true about it not matching the official narrative.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Pelosi was an awful leader of the house. Her childish behaviour was an embarrassment for US politics, dramatically ripping up Trump's speech like a spoilt teenager was a good example of her poor judgement. Extremely unprofessional. Hopefully her replacement conducts themselves with more grace.

It's so weird that someone would cite Nancy Pelosi for childish behavior but give the world biggest political baby a pass. Anyway, what you neglect to note is how effective she was. In the about to expire latest session of Congress, she helped to pass some very major bills despite the small Democratic majority. And that's what counts.

 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I'm hearing the camera footage of the attack on her husband may be released shortly, so stepping back from the limelight now might just be great timing if the rumours are true about it not matching the official narrative.

This is just another way of spreading disinformation by attributing allegations to "rumours". Other ways of doing that are "some people say" or "it is said" or " I heard that". Give it up. 

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's so weird that someone would cite Nancy Pelosi for childish behavior but give the world biggest political baby a pass. Anyway, what you neglect to note is how effective she was. In the about to expire latest session of Congress, she helped to pass some very major bills despite the small Democratic majority. And that's what counts.

 

Who is the world's biggest political baby?

 

And when did I give them a pass?

 

Links or a retraction please.

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is just another way of spreading disinformation by attributing allegations to "rumours". Other ways of doing that are "some people say" or "it is said" or " I heard that". Give it up. 

It's all over Twitter. 

 

Yes it is only a rumour at this stage. I am not presenting it as fact. Are we not allowed to say what we've heard? I'm not saying I know it to be 100% true. I am sure forum members are capable of deciding that for themselves, we'll know for sure within a few weeks. The forum is full of rumours and speculation, as long as it is made clear that it is a rumour and not presented as a fact then I do not see any issue. if the forum was restricted to provable facts it would not be a forum, it would be an Encyclopedia.

 

 

If this is true (and I repeat - it may or may not be) then Pelosi may in hindsight consider her timing of standing down to be politically expedient.

Just now, JonnyF said:

Who is the world's biggest political baby?

 

And when did I give them a pass?

 

Links or a retraction please.

Is it true that virtually every time you discuss Pelosi you claim that her bad behavior disqualifies her for her office  and don't acknowledgie her achievements.  If you can say that it's the same for the way you comment about Trump, that you always mention his vile behavior without citing his achievements, then  you have a point. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Is it true that virtually every time you discuss Pelosi you claim that her bad behavior disqualifies her for her office  and don't acknowledgie her achievements.  If you can say that it's the same for the way you comment about Trump, that you always mention his vile behavior without citing his achievements, then  you have a point. 

 

 

Please stay on topic. This thread is not about Trump.

 

I never claimed her bad behaviour disqualifies her from office. You just made that up. 

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's all over Twitter. 

 

Yes it is only a rumour at this stage. I am not presenting it as fact. Are we not allowed to say what we've heard? I'm not saying I know it to be 100% true. I am sure forum members are capable of deciding that for themselves, we'll know for sure within a few weeks. The forum is full of rumours and speculation, as long as it is made clear that it is a rumour and not presented as a fact then I do not see any issue. if the forum was restricted to provable facts it would not be a forum, it would be an Encyclopedia.

 

 

If this is true (and I repeat - it may or may not be) then Pelosi may in hindsight consider her timing of standing down to be politically expedient.

Wow an unverified twitter account who also claims that "Nancy Pelosi stepped down as Speaker of the House because she knew the Paul Pelosi "hammer" police bodycam footage would be released this week Speaker Pelosi understands the footage will effectively end her political career"

 

I see he's got his ebay store in his bio driving clicks...............lol

 

 

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's all over Twitter. 

 

Yes it is only a rumour at this stage. I am not presenting it as fact. Are we not allowed to say what we've heard? I'm not saying I know it to be 100% true. I am sure forum members are capable of deciding that for themselves, we'll know for sure within a few weeks. The forum is full of rumours and speculation, as long as it is made clear that it is a rumour and not presented as a fact then I do not see any issue. if the forum was restricted to provable facts it would not be a forum, it would be an Encyclopedia.

 

 

If this is true (and I repeat - it may or may not be) then Pelosi may in hindsight consider her timing of standing down to be politically expedient.

Your claim that you are acquainted with a rumor is a sneaky way to make insinuations without being accountable. 

55 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Pelosi was an awful leader of the house. Her childish behaviour was an embarrassment for US politics, dramatically ripping up Trump's speech like a spoilt teenager was a good example of her poor judgement. Extremely unprofessional. Hopefully her replacement conducts themselves with more grace.

 

Having said that, I wish her a happy retirement. 

 

I'm hearing the camera footage of the attack on her husband may be released shortly, so stepping back from the limelight now might just be great timing if the rumours are true about it not matching the official narrative.

I don't think she is retiring from the gravy train, just the position of leader.

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your claim that you are acquainted with a rumor is a sneaky way to make insinuations without being accountable. 

Nothing sneaky about it.

 

It's a rumour. I presented it as a rumour, not a fact. I even posted the source of the rumour.

 

People can make their own minds up. They don't need you to censor what they can and cannot read.

Please stay on topic and the topic isn't about Paul pelosi. 

 

Funny thing, as soon as Pelosi landed in Taiwan, my first thought was — she must be about to retire. 

3 minutes ago, FarAngMoh said:

Funny thing, as soon as Pelosi landed in Taiwan, my first thought was — she must be about to retire. 

It's almost as if you think she shouldn't have gone to Taiwan.

19 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It's almost as if you think she shouldn't have gone to Taiwan.

Was it anything more than a political stunt?

If she (or the Dems) wanted to do something meaningful, they would amend the Taiwan Relations Act along the lines of the US-Japan security alliance. 

 Apparently she will hold onto her congressional seat so that she can continue to contribute to the family's insider trading efforts 

41 minutes ago, pegman said:

 Apparently she will hold onto her congressional seat so that she can continue to contribute to the family's insider trading efforts 

You forgot to mention legally. It's wrong but until congress changes the law...

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

You forgot to mention legally. It's wrong but until congress changes the law...

Acting on price sensitive info that is not known to the market is illegal, no matter who does it. Dont confuse this insider trading with the general legality of govt officials to trade stocks - which IS legal.

33 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Acting on price sensitive info that is not known to the market is illegal, no matter who does it. Dont confuse this insider trading with the general legality of govt officials to trade stocks - which IS legal.

Correct. Link to evidence?