Let's pretend for one moment that he does die before the election, just for the funsies. What happens then? Will the nomination revert to option number 2, aka Bernie Sanders? Or will his running mate automatically replace him just the way Vice-President is supposted to step in after the Big Man in the White House chokes on a piece of matzo? Does he even have a running mate yet?
US Joe Biden News Megathread - The Other Biden Derangement Syndrome Thread (with a side order of Fauci Derangement Syndrome)
- Thread starter Borscht
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
Nah, that dudes alright. Gotta respect an old timer like him who's willing to stick it out.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2021
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
Saying "Bernie would have won if he wasn't sabotaged" is like saying "we could have world peace if people stopped fighting." It's a meaningless hypothetical because we don't live in a world where people with true will aren't going to push Bernie's gay little head into the toilet and flush it over and over again until he agrees to kiss their boots. So, maybe you're correct that he couldn't have won a fair general election, but it's not worth considering that far because we don't live in a fair world. We live in this one, and Bernie is a cuck either way.
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
Someone seems to be openly trying to provoke Pelosi, someone who so far has not openly participated in the Democat Civil War at all. @Gehenna have you ever heard of Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) before? Out of curiosity.
Jon Ossoff expected to snub Pelosi by pushing ban on Congress stock trades
(article)
Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff is looking to introduce a bill that would ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks — a practice that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has defended as her husband rakes in millions of dollars trading shares of tech companies, The Post has learned.
The Ossoff ethics bill, which the Democratic freshman Senator plans to introduce once he finds a Republican co-sponsor, would crack down on conflicts of interest by making it illegal for lawmakers and their families to trade stocks while in office, a Washington, D.C. source close to the situation said.
It would also likely require lawmakers put their assets in blind trusts — a step that the 34-year-old Ossoff completed himself months after being elected in January 2021.
No Senate Republicans appear to have publicly come out against congressional stock trades, so Ossoff may have trouble finding a co-sponsor in the Senate. But Republican support in the House is more likely, since several GOP House members including Texas Reps. Michael Cloud and Chip Roy have come out against the practice.
Another proposal to curb Congress trades, the Ban Conflicted Trading Act, was introduced in the Senate in March by four Democratic Senators including Sen. Jeff Merkeley of Oregon and Ossoff’s fellow Georgia freshman Raphael Warnock. It also has an accompanying bipartisan House version backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Roy, among other Democrats and Republicans.
But the Ban Conflicted Trading Act would only ban trades by members of Congress and their senior staff — not spouses or families — so Paul Pelosi’s stock-picking would remain legal.
Ossoff’s forthcoming bill would be stricter by closing the spouse loophole, the source said. That would put the new bill more in line with a bipartisan House proposal called the TRUST In Congress Act, which would ban close family members from trading and is supported by Democrats including Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.), as well as Republicans like Roy, Cloud, Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Fred Keller (R-Pa.).
“As Speaker Pelosi’s recent transactions make clear, decisions made for the people should be separate than decisions made for personal enrichment,” Roy told The Post.
Insiders say that Republicans in the Senate could fold and support an Ossoff-style bill if they feel political pressure. One person applying such pressure is Arizona Republican Senate primary candidate Blake Masters, who says both Pelosi and Senate Republicans are “wrong” about the issue.
“These lawmakers are just out of touch with how normal people view the situation,” Masters told The Post. “Members of Congress should not be buying call options on Big Tech companies they’re in charge of regulating, that is ludicrous.”
Asked for comment on Ossoff’s potential Congressional ethics bill, spokesman Jake Best said, “Don’t have anything I can share just yet.”
News of Ossoff’s potential bill comes as Pelosi and other politicians from both parties catch flak for making millions trading stocks despite potentially being privy to insider information that can move markets. Current rules allow members of Congress and their families to trade stocks as long as they disclose the moves within 45 days, though dozens of lawmakers have failed to file reports on time.
Ossoff has criticized the practice, but has yet to sign onto any specific bill.
Ossoff and Warnock in particular appear to owe their political careers to poorly-received Congressional stock trades. Their opponents in the 2021 Georgia special election — Republicans Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue — both faced investigations for trading stocks ahead of the 2020 stock market crash after receiving Senate briefings about the coronavirus.
While Loeffler and Perdue were never charged with insider trading, Ossoff and Warnock both used the trades as ammunition to hammer the incumbents and ultimately won by slim margins.
The Georgia election shows why both Republicans and Democrats should support a crackdown on stock trading, according to Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist at progressive think tank Public Citizen.
“David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler lost their seats, I think, because of the allegations of insider trading,” Holman told The Post. “Had those allegations not happened, I suspect the Republicans would’ve held onto the senate.”
“Members of both parties should realize it’s a politically risky thing to do, to trade on the stock market,” Holman added.
Concerns about insider trading have also stretched beyond Congress.
In October, Ossoff called for a ban on stock trading by Federal Reserve officials following revelations that two regional reserve bank presidents had actively traded shares in 2020. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell banned the practice weeks later.
Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff is looking to introduce a bill that would ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks — a practice that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has defended as her husband rakes in millions of dollars trading shares of tech companies, The Post has learned.
The Ossoff ethics bill, which the Democratic freshman Senator plans to introduce once he finds a Republican co-sponsor, would crack down on conflicts of interest by making it illegal for lawmakers and their families to trade stocks while in office, a Washington, D.C. source close to the situation said.
It would also likely require lawmakers put their assets in blind trusts — a step that the 34-year-old Ossoff completed himself months after being elected in January 2021.
No Senate Republicans appear to have publicly come out against congressional stock trades, so Ossoff may have trouble finding a co-sponsor in the Senate. But Republican support in the House is more likely, since several GOP House members including Texas Reps. Michael Cloud and Chip Roy have come out against the practice.
Another proposal to curb Congress trades, the Ban Conflicted Trading Act, was introduced in the Senate in March by four Democratic Senators including Sen. Jeff Merkeley of Oregon and Ossoff’s fellow Georgia freshman Raphael Warnock. It also has an accompanying bipartisan House version backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Roy, among other Democrats and Republicans.
But the Ban Conflicted Trading Act would only ban trades by members of Congress and their senior staff — not spouses or families — so Paul Pelosi’s stock-picking would remain legal.
Ossoff’s forthcoming bill would be stricter by closing the spouse loophole, the source said. That would put the new bill more in line with a bipartisan House proposal called the TRUST In Congress Act, which would ban close family members from trading and is supported by Democrats including Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY) and Karen Bass (D-Calif.), as well as Republicans like Roy, Cloud, Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Fred Keller (R-Pa.).
“As Speaker Pelosi’s recent transactions make clear, decisions made for the people should be separate than decisions made for personal enrichment,” Roy told The Post.
Insiders say that Republicans in the Senate could fold and support an Ossoff-style bill if they feel political pressure. One person applying such pressure is Arizona Republican Senate primary candidate Blake Masters, who says both Pelosi and Senate Republicans are “wrong” about the issue.
“These lawmakers are just out of touch with how normal people view the situation,” Masters told The Post. “Members of Congress should not be buying call options on Big Tech companies they’re in charge of regulating, that is ludicrous.”
Asked for comment on Ossoff’s potential Congressional ethics bill, spokesman Jake Best said, “Don’t have anything I can share just yet.”
News of Ossoff’s potential bill comes as Pelosi and other politicians from both parties catch flak for making millions trading stocks despite potentially being privy to insider information that can move markets. Current rules allow members of Congress and their families to trade stocks as long as they disclose the moves within 45 days, though dozens of lawmakers have failed to file reports on time.
Ossoff has criticized the practice, but has yet to sign onto any specific bill.
Ossoff and Warnock in particular appear to owe their political careers to poorly-received Congressional stock trades. Their opponents in the 2021 Georgia special election — Republicans Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue — both faced investigations for trading stocks ahead of the 2020 stock market crash after receiving Senate briefings about the coronavirus.
While Loeffler and Perdue were never charged with insider trading, Ossoff and Warnock both used the trades as ammunition to hammer the incumbents and ultimately won by slim margins.
The Georgia election shows why both Republicans and Democrats should support a crackdown on stock trading, according to Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist at progressive think tank Public Citizen.
“David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler lost their seats, I think, because of the allegations of insider trading,” Holman told The Post. “Had those allegations not happened, I suspect the Republicans would’ve held onto the senate.”
“Members of both parties should realize it’s a politically risky thing to do, to trade on the stock market,” Holman added.
Concerns about insider trading have also stretched beyond Congress.
In October, Ossoff called for a ban on stock trading by Federal Reserve officials following revelations that two regional reserve bank presidents had actively traded shares in 2020. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell banned the practice weeks later.
FlappyBat
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
The Supreme Court is one of the last lines of defense against government tyranny before we get to guillotines and guns, and this dude thinks deference is the way to go. Fuck me.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2019
@Oxous Isn't Ossoff one of the beneficiary of both "election fortification" and the fact that both Kemp and Ratburger sat on their asses and did nothing?
Surprising to see him turn on the Establishment like that, but maybe he knows it's gonna die in committee anyway and it'd cost him nothing to virtue signal.
Surprising to see him turn on the Establishment like that, but maybe he knows it's gonna die in committee anyway and it'd cost him nothing to virtue signal.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Yes, and he got elected to the regular seat, so he’s not up again this year.
He’s 34, a journalist, and Jewish, maybe he’s planning on running for President when his term is up? Bernie needs a grifting successor.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
The beneficiaries of the fraud likely did not know of said fraud. You don't let every Tom, Dick, and Harry know of the machine and ins and outs. Could be he found out after and proved to be exactly the kind of person that is the reason -why- you don't do so.
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
It's a strange move, that's for sure. There's at least *three other bills introduced into Congress that literally do the exact same thing as the bill he's written. The first was introduced into the Senate in March and got support from 4 Dem Senators, and an identical version which a bunch of Reps. including AOC are supporting. The other is a bipartisan House bill which bans family members from trading. That's what's leading me to think this is potentially a message or something, if he was merely in support of banning trading then he would've supported the other bill.
There's two other tells that have me suspicious. The first is that he's already been a House member, so he was absolutely thinking of Pelosi when he was writing it. She's by far the most prolific trader in Congress. The second is that he is specifically looking for a Republican to co-sponsor it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2019
Ossof’s bill stops family trading too, the others don’t. It’s absolutely a slight to Pelosi.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
serious we need fucking thunk back in here
Oxous
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2021
I got my bills confused, edited the post to reflect that. There's actually two bills against insider trading in the House, AOC is sponsoring the "Ban Conflicted Trading Act" - which is also in the Senate - which doesn't ban family trading. The other, "TRUST in Congress Act" does ban family trading, and unsurprisingly 1/3 of the co-sponsors for that one are Republican.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
Tbf, it's more like he really believes in Congressional deference, and that Congress has the power to push through a lot of legislation so long as it's not egregiously unconstitutional. From what I remember, and @Gehenna or anyone with legal experience feel free to correct me, but Roberts isn't really a fan of the APA and the administrative state generally, and while he's not as hellbent on overturning Chevron deference like Gorsuch has been, he's definitely not nearly as lenient with the agencies as the liberals are.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2019
never forgive the communist cabal in the secret T&H board for taking away our thunks and horrifyings
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
y'all bitching about thunks and horrifyings when the true crime was losing Islamic Content.
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
and this is where I'd give a thunk
IF I HAD ONE
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2019
my kingdom for a rainbow, but alas...
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Lunacy! Sheer Lunacy!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2018
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2021
There's a bit to this beyond Pelosi. Ossoff has done next to nothing to date so he wants to get his name on something, thus sponsoring a separate bill. Likewise he's in Georgia so he wants something to give him at least some bipartisan credentials and good publicity, thus focusing on insider trading and seeking Republican support.
The last bit as you bring up is the messaging. I'd wager he's doing this at the behest of someone else as a way to build pressure on Pelosi, or potentially the current Dem leadership - i.e. stop waffling and officially state your post-midterm intentions or we're going to force an answer. Ossoff is only a first term senator so he's useful camouflage.
- Status