Pelosi supports the PELOSI Act. Committee Republicans didn’t.

[TimHauck 3,302]

Bill sponsor Josh Hawley was the only committee Republican to vote for it, which is now called the HONEST act. All committee Democrats voted for it.

Would apply to future presidents/VP’s, but not Trump & Vance.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/30/senate-stock-trading-ban-pelosi-act-00484256

https://x.com/PelosiTracker_/status/1950635994031779879

https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1950591718740439151
 

[thegeneral 3,580]

Republicans love talking about this. Doing anything about it not so much.

[TimHauck 3,302]

I probably shouldn’t have mentioned Nancy. I’m sure most here will deflect to just talk about her and how she already made her money.

Rick Scott: “anybody want to be poor?  I don’t.”

https://x.com/HouseMajPAC/status/1950631322029801508
 

 

[thegeneral 3,580]

I’m honestly a bit torn on this issue. I don’t give a fock they have to put money into a trust or whatever. Am sure there will be ways to sneak around this as well.

Have always thought much tougher scrutiny and much more timely announcement of their trades, heavy governance and oversight of what trades they make, huge penalties was the more pragmatic way to go.

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,535]

I think every person in congress should work for their constituents avg income. 

[weepaws 3,329]

Shouldn’t be allowed to be in congress for more than  two years, and political positions should be only for two years, must be under 50, and no Pedro like Biden and trump.  

[Maximum Overkill 2,424]

9 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Bill sponsor Josh Hawley was the only committee Republican to vote for it, which is now called the HONEST act. All committee Democrats voted for it.

Would apply to future presidents/VP’s, but not Trump & Vance.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/30/senate-stock-trading-ban-pelosi-act-00484256

https://x.com/PelosiTracker_/status/1950635994031779879

https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1950591718740439151
 

The bill is also padded with Liberal Fluff BS. You should probably not rely on MSNBC for your info. 

[seafoam1 3,409]

2 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

The bill is also padded with Liberal Fluff BS. You should probably not rely on MSNBC for your info. 

Liberals are idiots. They don't know what's in these bills and only cheer them on or hate them by who puts them up for vote. 

They never know what's actually in them as they only read the titles and know what they are told by their liberal collective masters. 

[Maximum Overkill 2,424]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Liberals are idiots. They don't know what's in these bills and only cheer them on or hate them by who puts them up for vote. 

They never know what's actually in them as they only read the titles and know what they are told by their liberal collective masters. 

@TimHauck has morphed into the ultimate troll, it's almost impressive but he's the definition of a Libtard. He reads 1 paragraph from 1 Liberal publication and declares it gospel. He relies on fake news and Liberal Fluff pieces to survive. 

Things are going extremely well right now in this Country but Liberals will die before they admit it. People like @thegeneral actually wish Trump would fail, he's said it. 

[TimHauck 3,302]

21 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

The bill is also padded with Liberal Fluff BS. You should probably not rely on MSNBC for your info. 

Here is the bill.  What part is the “liberal fluff BS”?

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Committee-Passed-Member-Trading-Ban-Bill-Text.pdf

[Ron_Artest 2,185]

It would be nice if politicians had ethics and didn't engage in insider trading but since they don't, we kinda need bills like this.

Republicans cried about pelosi for years but they won't put up when called to do so.  Not shocked at all.

[seafoam1 3,409]

44 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

@TimHauck has morphed into the ultimate troll, it's almost impressive but he's the definition of a Libtard. He reads 1 paragraph from 1 Liberal publication and declares it gospel. He relies on fake news and Liberal Fluff pieces to survive. 

Things are going extremely well right now in this Country but Liberals will die before they admit it. People like @thegeneral actually wish Trump would fail, he's said it. 

100% fact. 

[Fnord 2,503]

I love how the entirety of the GOP is so open in supporting Don's unending grift.

Our beloved POTUS sets up a bunch of crypto ventures where he can quickly and easily receive hundreds of millions in bribes, but he and his family are carved out of this legislation. Current GOP are the biggest bunch of cucks ever. 

[RLLD 4,275]

I would read in to this and suggest that those who voted against it probably are among the corrupt who game the system.

Now, I understand that I do not have "proof" and there is no indictment or conviction....but in this instance I infer that liberals will agree with me......since the politics are amenable to them

[Fnord 2,503]

40 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I would read in to this and suggest that those who voted against it probably are among the corrupt who game the system.

Now, I understand that I do not have "proof" and there is no indictment or conviction....but in this instance I infer that liberals will agree with me......since the politics are amenable to them

Everyone that voted against it is GOP. Only GOPer that supported was Hawley.

[RLLD 4,275]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Everyone that voted against it is GOP. Only GOPer that supported was Hawley.

Then by extension.....we can assume all of those people are afraid of it, and then further by extension.....that there is something to be discovered.....

Its like taking the 5th when you want to avoid culpability....

[Fnord 2,503]

10 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Then by extension.....we can assume all of those people are afraid of it, and then further by extension.....that there is something to be discovered.....

Its like taking the 5th when you want to avoid culpability....

YOU can assume that, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's been discovered already. I couldn't find the article I read recently about this, but the link below outlines it nicely despite being several years old.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/congress-stock-trading-conflict-of-interest-rules-238033

[RLLD 4,275]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

YOU can assume that, but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's been discovered already. I couldn't find the article I read recently about this, but the link below outlines it nicely despite being several years old.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/congress-stock-trading-conflict-of-interest-rules-238033

Why cant I assume that if Republicans vote against it that they are afraid of it because they are probably involved in doing the act? 

[jerryskids 7,068]

This seems like an odd subject to be so partisan about.  Are we supposed to believe that every Republican in Congress (besides Hawley) wants to grift, and every Democrat wants to stop it?

Something else must be going on here.   

[TimHauck 3,302]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

This seems like an odd subject to be so partisan about.  Are we supposed to believe that every Republican in Congress (besides Hawley) wants to grift, and every Democrat wants to stop it?

Something else must be going on here.   

Well Trump also spoke out against the bill.  He says to just prosecute Pelosi, and only Pelosi, instead.

[TBayXXXVII 2,664]

I only read the communist propaganda website, not the Act yet.  From what I read, I'd have voted against it too.  If the Act forces the politician and their spouse (only), to divest from the stock market, Insider Trading laws already address this.  What's the point?  The politician and their spouse have the ability to sell their shares to their kids, friends, and other family members and then buy them back at the same price when they're out of office.  It doesn't sound like this Act would actually accomplish anything.

[Fnord 2,503]

53 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

This seems like an odd subject to be so partisan about.  Are we supposed to believe that every Republican in Congress (besides Hawley) wants to grift, and every Democrat wants to stop it?

In the Democrat's perfect world, absolutely! Obviously that's not the reality.

19 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

If the Act forces the politician and their spouse (only), to divest from the stock market, Insider Trading laws already address this.  What's the point?  The politician and their spouse have the ability to sell their shares to their kids, friends, and other family members and then buy them back at the same price when they're out of office.  It doesn't sound like this Act would actually accomplish anything.

This is what the Republicans are claiming, with some validity. I think the crux is that it's obvious the insider trading laws are being completely ignored and most of those ignoring them are doing it brazenly, knowing there will be no consequences. If I would have been part of the process, I would have suggested that all assets like that go into a blind trust, which is also already the law, but you-know-who has been in complete violation of that since day 1 of his first term.

[RLLD 4,275]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

Why cant I assume that if Republicans vote against it that they are afraid of it because they are probably involved in doing the act? 

@Fnord  Care to answer me?

[TBayXXXVII 2,664]

2 hours ago, Fnord said:

This is what the Republicans are claiming, with some validity. I think the crux is that it's obvious the insider trading laws are being completely ignored and most of those ignoring them are doing it brazenly, knowing there will be no consequences. If I would have been part of the process, I would have suggested that all assets like that go into a blind trust, which is also already the law, but you-know-who has been in complete violation of that since day 1 of his first term.

Then this Act won't work.  So why vote for it?  To pass this Act is to address the outcome, not the problem.  This IS my biggest issue with all of government.  They never fix the cause/source of the problem, just try to create new results.  If the SEC and DOJ aren't doing their jobs, then they need to be held accountable.  Now, if there isn't a way to do that, then they both need to be disbanded.  If the result of that is no stock market, then so be it.

The problem is that the SEC and DOJ are government entities who get their duties by political appointments.  It's like a brother hiring his brother to oversee what he's doing.  Yeah, that'll work.  The only solution at that point then, since disbanding the stock market would never fly, is that anyone who wins public office, their spouse, and 1st and 2nd level family members (top and bottom... parents, grandparents, kids, grandkids, first cousins and second cousins), ALL must divest all of their stock holdings.  On top of that, anyone they hire, their parents, grandparents, spouse, kids, grandkids, first cousins, and second cousins... must do the same.  If that means I won't see con men lawyers in congress, I can live happily with that.  There isn't a single elected official in DC has earned any benefit of the doubt in terms of trust.  I think they're all lying, all of the time.  They tell people what people want to hear instead of what the people need to hear, because they're afraid of losing their gravy train.

To vote FOR the Act is a bigger red flag to me that to vote AGAINST it.  It's just telling politicians other ways to insulate themselves from being held accountable.

 

Also, there isn't a law that mandates candidates to put their assets in a blind trust, they only have to disclose all of their holdings.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,664]

3 hours ago, RLLD said:

Why cant I assume that if Republicans vote against it that they are afraid of it because they are probably involved in doing the act? 

I see it the opposite.  The Act doesn't accomplish any goal they're trying to achieve.  It allows the politician to find other avenues to illegally trade on the market and give them a get out of jail free card.  I can give Howley the benefit of the doubt, that this wasn't his objective, as I saw a video on him having a problem with the way things are and he wants them to stop.  Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.  But this Act won't work... it'll actually insulate the politician from being held accountable.  The politician and their spouse could just sell their holdings to their kids, parents, or siblings for $1, then after they're out of office, buy them back for $1.  How does that prevent anything.  To me, the problem is the people voting for it, not against it.  Now, I'll re-iterate what I said earlier... this is my take from reading the communist propaganda website, I didn't read the Act itself (yet).

[RLLD 4,275]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

I see it the opposite.  The Act doesn't accomplish any goal they're trying to achieve.  It allows the politician to find other avenues to illegally trade on the market and give them a get out of jail free card.  I can give Howley the benefit of the doubt, that this wasn't his objective, as I saw a video on him having a problem with the way things are and he wants them to stop.  Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't.  But this Act won't work... it'll actually insulate the politician from being held accountable.  The politician and their spouse could just sell their holdings to their kids, parents, or siblings for $1, then after they're out of office, buy them back for $1.  How does that prevent anything.  To me, the problem is the people voting for it, not against it.  Now, I'll re-iterate what I said earlier... this is my take from reading the communist propaganda website, I didn't read the Act itself (yet).

I think you are correct that it probably wont stop their abuses. But why oppose it? Just because they want it stronger? Or because they are afraid of it?

[The Real timschochet 7,405]

8 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Here is the bill.  What part is the “liberal fluff BS”?

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Committee-Passed-Member-Trading-Ban-Bill-Text.pdf

I find it interesting that those who refer to you as a troll have yet to answer this question. 

[Maximum Overkill 2,424]

Anyone remember when Pelosi's husband got chased around the house by his gay lover with a hammer?  

[Meglamaniac 787]

4 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Anyone remember when Pelosi's husband got chased around the house by his gay lover with a hammer?  

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
Oh, oh, oh, oh—
Stop, Hammer time!

[The Real timschochet 7,405]

4 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Anyone remember when Pelosi's husband got chased around the house by his gay lover with a hammer?  

No. That was a lie. When are you going to answer @TimHauck’s question? Are uou lying about the “liberal fluff” too? 

[Maximum Overkill 2,424]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

No. That was a lie. When are you going to answer @TimHauck’s question? Are uou lying about the “liberal fluff” too? 

Run Paul Run! 

[TBayXXXVII 2,664]

54 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think you are correct that it probably wont stop their abuses. But why oppose it? Just because they want it stronger? Or because they are afraid of it?

I think they oppose it because they weren't thinking as criminally as the Democrats were.  They were being selfish jackazzes.  LOL  Like I said, all they have to do is conspire with close friends and family members to sell off their investments to.  Then, give them the tips, the close friends and family members react accordingly and the politician is absolved of any wrong doing.  At the end of their run in government, they buy their investments back and money made.  They walk away free and clear.

I'd vote against it if I was suspicious of the other members and wanting to make sure they didn't get a workaround handed to them on a silver platter.

[Meglamaniac 787]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

No. That was a lie. When are you going to answer @TimHauck’s question? Are uou lying about the “liberal fluff” too? 

(Lying on the floor kicking and screaming)

Answer Tim's question!!!!!!

[TimHauck 3,302]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

No. That was a lie. When are you going to answer @TimHauck’s question? Are uou lying about the “liberal fluff” too? 

I was surprised it took this long for Paul Pelosi’s “gay lover” to come up…

[TimHauck 3,302]

5 hours ago, jerryskids said:

This seems like an odd subject to be so partisan about.  Are we supposed to believe that every Republican in Congress (besides Hawley) wants to grift, and every Democrat wants to stop it?

Something else must be going on here.   

Also, it wasn’t “every Republican in Congress,” it was just a committee.  Then vote was 8-7.

[seafoam1 3,409]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I was surprised it took this long for Paul Pelosi’s “gay lover” to come up…

Oh, did him and his lover make up after all this time? 

[Maximum Overkill 2,424]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I was surprised it took this long for Paul Pelosi’s “gay lover” to come up…

Has your Gay lover ever chased you around with a hammer in a drunken fueled gay anall orgy?  

[TimHauck 3,302]

6 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Has your Gay lover ever chased you around with a hammer in a drunken fueled gay anall orgy?  

Says the guy calling me the “ultimate troll,” lol

[Horseman 2,684]

2 hours ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Anyone remember when Pelosi's husband got chased around the house by his gay lover with a hammer?  

Yeah, the downs guy said they weren't having sex because Paul still had his socks and shoes on. 

 

[TimHauck 3,302]

The fake news lovers really showing themselves in this thread