Not to say the bill won't help at all if passed, but I have little hope the offenders won't find a way around it.
We’re at the end of keeping it propped up since the early 70’s. the only thing politicians and their families should be able to invest in is broad mutual funds.
It all has fraudulent tendencies. Politics, big business, numbers manipulations for board reports. Investments gained from those reports. I know of a company just recently which gained more seed money based off a report of hospital opportunities, most of which didn’t truly exist. I’m not defending breaking the law. When corporations and a group of attorneys get together, the line isn’t as clear in their business dealings, as it is for most of us here. I’ve also sat in a room and told 2 guys I hope they room in a cell together. I was fired on the spot, but karma got them. Company was Arthrocare and their story is on Google.
Many of them believe they are entitled to the obscene gains made possible by trading on the information heard in committee meetings. A law prohibiting this behavior would be great but I’m hopeful that at some point the tide turns and we simply elect (for the most part) people who are interested in serving their country rather than first and foremost using their office to build wealth.
It pizzes me off that this is not required. I worked for a major, major global corporation. Anything beyond broad fund offerings i.e., single company stocks, we ALL employees, but especially management/execs, were required to get Legal approval before we could purchase. Maybe it has changed, but the avoidance of mere perception was viewed as paramount.
I doubt it has changed, congress is uniquely able to do this without any kind of scrutiny while being at the levers of decisions
[uck fay]ers have been so scared of Sharia law being placed in America, and they are doing it themselves. [uck fay]heads.
Dems have WH and both chambers of congress, what is holding them back on simply codifying something? Internal disagreement within the Dem party on abortion limitations? Would Manchin not support it because he is worried about pissing off his overwhelmingly Republican base? Are they trying to not resolve this issue because they think this remaining unresolved come Election Day gives them the best shot at winning the Midterms nationally? I just don't get why they have not done something legislatively. EDIT: disregard. For some reason I ignorantly thought this wasn't a law where 60 votes were needed. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...mocrats-do-need-more-majority-codify-roe-vs-/
I believe the house has and the senate can't get 60 on it. I think the sides are too far apart as to what it should look like, in part because to save birth control one inherently protects some types or level of abortion. Most people have been misled on human reproduction for 70 years and are not ready to say all bc is abortion or admit that abortions don't necessarily mean killing a person. So the most conservative position becomes the default in many places and boom, no bc.
Yea totally went over my head that abortion codification is able to be filibustered. Clumsy of me to not realize that initially. As someone who would be labeled a "conservative" or "Republican" based on my voting history within our binary two party system, I [uck fay]ing hate everything about this issue. It's such bad politicking. Not to mention the fact abortion is one of the least pleasant things out there to talk about. On the leftwing extreme, the idea that a late term abortion could happen outside of having to save the life of a mother makes me wanna puke. The glorification and celebration of abortion I see out there within pop culture is sickening. At a certain point within a pregnancy I absolutely think we must protect and champion the unborn because I very much view a baby/fetus (whatever you wanna call it) as an actual human being with rights. On the other hand, the Republican extreme that they wanna outlaw birth control and any abortion at any point in pregnancy even in the event of rape and incest via charging anyone involved with murder is equally revolting. The alley-way coat hanger abortion type stuff is [uck fay]ing disgusting and has no place in a society like America. That is very much some Sharia-like Christian shit. But I'm not a scientist, a doctor, nor a "women" or "person with a uterus" as some say now. I'm self aware enough to know I have no business to be any type of authority on all things abortion. I don't know what the answer is.
One more thought on your last two sentences: I agree with your summarization. But I would also add that in the rare events a pregnancy of 8/9 month baby/fetus is terminated for no reason having to do with the health of the mother, rape or incest is indeed killing a human being. Even if someone is in a tough situation financially or whatever the motivation may be for a rare late term abortion, I think the unborn deserve a chance at life once they reach a certain stage in a pregnancy. I'd like to think that opinion doesn't make me a "Christian Taliban" or whatever term the no limit pro-choice crowd would call me. Just an incredibly sticky, sensitive and complicated situation overall
I had no clue what the Jones Act was, googled it, and how have we not erased this one from the books yet? Or at absolute bare minimum provide a caveat to allow for emergencies?
