Stopping CORRUPTION in Public Office is Achievable!

Immediate REFORMS from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT need to be made now! If Republicans refuse to pass the legislation, then let them take the blame for corruption they are creating the bulk of it.

It is time to bring this chaos to an end.

Immediate REFORMS from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT need to be made now! If Republicans refuse to pass the legislation, then let them take the blame for corruption they are creating the bulk of it.

Oh, I am sorry.

Please show where Democrats passed anything like that when they controlled Congress and the WH.

Talk about hypocrisy...............smh

Under the Clinton administration Congress passed a bill outlawing AR 15, mass shooting declined by 249%.

Republicans, appealing to gun toting Red Necks, rescinded it.

Under the Clinton administration Congress passed a bill outlawing AR 15, mass shooting declined by 249%.

Hoping you can provide the link that proves this number is true.  Because this is not what I find.

theconversation

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

So had the assault weapons ban been renewed (it wasn't recinded, it just wasn't renewed as it only has a 10 year lifespan) than maybe 314 lives would have been saved.  But that's only a maybe, maybe a different gun would have been used.  This is trying to use math to show an outcome that really cannot be predicted.

And the conclusions they admit to...

theconversation

It is also important to note that our analysis cannot definitively say that the assault weapons ban of 1994 caused a decrease in mass shootings, nor that its expiration in 2004 resulted in the growth of deadly incidents in the years since.

Many additional factors may contribute to the shifting frequency of these shootings, such as changes in domestic violence rates, political extremism, psychiatric illness, firearm availability and a surge in sales, and the recent rise in hate groups.

So mass shootings during the ban went down and after the ban ended they increased.  That's the only truth that can be determined from the statistics, but there's nothing to indicate that the ban would definitely kept mass shootings down.

As an aside, liking your own comments is just wrong.

If I don't like my comments, why would anyone like them? 

You mean like this?

thehill

Anger is boiling over at House Democratic leadership for failing to deliver on a bill to ban members of Congress from trading stocks — a key priority for voters on both sides of the aisle — ahead of the midterm elections.  

Democratic leaders unveiled draft legislation to tackle the issue Tuesday, just days before Congress was set to leave for an extended recess. That left lawmakers little time to review the bill or offer changes, such as closing loopholes that critics say make the bill toothless, dooming its chances of a floor vote. 

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) on Friday issued a scathing statement, accusing Democratic leaders of slow-walking her own stock trading proposal — introduced two years ago with bipartisan backing — and ultimately offering a more complicated bill that was designed to fail. 

“This moment marks a failure of House leadership — and it’s yet another example of why I believe that the Democratic Party needs new leaders in the halls of Capitol Hill, as I have long made known,” Spanberger said in her statement.  

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Friday that the bill didn’t come to the floor because it didn’t have the votes to pass.  

businessinsider

The House of Representatives will not vote this week on a new bill backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ban lawmakers and other senior government officials from owning and trading stocks.

That all but assures Congress will not act on the issue before the November midterm elections, despite Pelosi's prior expectation that the bill could reach the floor this month.

The excuse? Not enough time to read the far-reaching 26-page bill , the text of which was released — after almost six months of radio silence — by the Committee on House Administration late on Tuesday night . 

That's despite months of public pressure in the wake of Insider's Conflicted Congress investigation , which revealed dozens of violations of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act , highlighted numerous potential conflicts of interests driven by lawmakers' stock holdings , and exposed paltry enforcement of the rules designed to prevent insider trading.

Several polls have indicated broad, bipartisan support for a ban. A new Data for Progress poll released just on Wednesday found that 77% of voters back the measure. 

Adding insult to injury, good-government groups have already identified a major blind-trust loophole in the Pelosi-backed "Combatting Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act," which they said came about largely due to a lack of serious engagement with ethics experts.

"I don't think this bill was written to pass the House," said Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, who first introduced her own bipartisan bill to ban congressional stock trading more than two years ago with Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas.

Only a handful of Democratic lawmakers have publicly voiced opposition to enacting the ban ever since Pelosi's initial dismissal of the idea was met with overwhelming public outrage , prompting her to acquiesce to enacting new reforms . 

But one of those few lawmakers happens to be House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, according to some reports . Hoyer, who controls the floor schedule, confirmed to Insider that there will be no vote this week.

"First of all, I haven't read the language. It just came out 36 hours ago," he said at the Capitol on Thursday, declining to confirm that he'd oppose the bill. "I don't know, we'll take a look at it."

At their weekly press conference on Thursday, House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York and Vice Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar of California seemed to indicate little urgency for holding a vote on the part of rank-and-file members. 

"The issue was not raised in the caucus meeting today," said Jeffries.

nypost

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her husband could be forced to stop trading individual stocks as US Senators from both parties pushed legislation that would ban the practice. 

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) introduced a bill on Wednesday that that would ban members of Congress, their spouses and their dependent children from trading stocks while in office. They would be required to place their assets in a blind trust — and any member of Congress that fails to comply would be fined their entire salary. 

“Members of Congress should not be playing the stock market while we make federal policy and have extraordinary access to confidential information,” Ossoff said. 

News of Ossoff’s plans for a bill was  first reported by The Post on Saturday . 

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also plans to introduce a separate bill that would ban members of Congress from trading stocks, spokeswoman Abigail Marone told The Post on Wednesday. 

“Year after year, politicians somehow manage to outperform the market, buying and selling millions in stocks of companies they’re supposed to be regulating,” Hawley said in a statement. “It’s time to stop turning a blind eye to Washington profiteering.”

Ossoff had been seeking a Republican co-sponsor for his bill, a source told The Post. But talks between Ossoff and Hawley’s teams broke down — culminating in Wednesday’s separate announcements, according to sources. Axios first reported news of Hawley’s bill. 

While the two bills are similar, Hawley’s ban would not extend to dependent children, according to sources. It would also be enforced by the US Government Accountability Office, whereas Ossoff and Kelly’s bill would be enforced by congressional ethics committees. 

Hawley himself doesn’t own any individual stocks and Ossoff put his assets in a blind trust shortly after being elected in January 2021. 

A potential Republican co-sponsor for either bill may be Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND), the only Republican in the Senate who has  placed his assets in a blind trust .

Hoeven’s office did not respond to a request for comment. 

In the House, meanwhile, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Tuesday that he would consider a ban on stock trades by members of Congress but did not endorse a specific plan.

“If you’re the Speaker of the House, you control what comes to the floor, what goes through committee, you have all the power to do everything you want — you can’t be trading millions of dollars,” McCarthy told The Post on Tuesday.

Sure Pelosi will get behind any bill to ban insider trading; so long as it lacks teeth- and has an easy work around. Anything else never see the light of day. But it is only Republicans./S

The Republican Party is stuffed with CORRUPTION. They drag their feet on every issue that doesn't benefit them personally.

Pelosi was successful because she understood that she needed to have the votes before bringing a bill to the floor, or Republicans on the payroll of billionaires would scuttle it.

As you may recalled, in John Boehner's tenure as Speaker of the House, he passed out checks to Republicans minutes before a vote was taken on the house dealing with the tobacco industry, that donates to his campaign since he was in the Ohio Statehouse.

You are hilarious.

First Pelosi kills a bipartisan bill that addressed the issue by never bringing it to the floor. From the first article I posted from the Hill.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) on Friday issued a scathing statement, accusing Democratic leaders of slow-walking her own stock trading proposal — introduced two years ago with bipartisan backing — and ultimately offering a more complicated bill that was designed to fail. 

“This moment marks a failure of House leadership — and it’s yet another example of why I believe that the Democratic Party needs new leaders in the halls of Capitol Hill, as I have long made known,” Spanberger said in her statement.  

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Friday that the bill didn’t come to the floor because it didn’t have the votes to pass.  

Really, didn't have the votes to pass? Maybe because it had zero backing from Democrat leadership- including herself. If it didn't have the votes she would have gladly brought it to the floor to fail.

Then she endorses a bill that has a loophole that allows them to opt out; and those trusts won't be as blind as needed.

From the Business Insider link I posted.

Adding insult to injury, good-government groups have already identified a major blind-trust loophole in the Pelosi-backed "Combatting Financial Conflicts of Interest in Government Act," which they said came about largely due to a lack of serious engagement with ethics experts.

A bill that accomplishes nothing; and Pelosi and Democrats are still slow walking it to the floor. Now claiming they need more time to read it. Since when does "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it" Pelosi care about reading bills; or knowing what is in them?

But Republicans are the only problem.

I take it you are not a fan of Pelosi. Are you a "fan" of any politician?

Your rules are a damn good start.

Thanks. I have always wondered what does "Kavika" mean? 

Problem is it will never happen.  Congress would need to create and pass such a bill and they will never willingly put limits on their lives.  You might as well as the fox guarding the hen house to place limits on himself.

It's not a Republican thing or a Democrat thing so blaming one party of the other is bullshit.  It's a people thing as people, once in power, tend to work to maintain or even increase their power.  They almost never willingly give it up.  And the power (and money) that politicians in Washington are getting now is great enough that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any reduction in it.

Unfortunately, corruption in politics swings back and force in Congress & the Senate like a pendulum.

However, at this juncture REPUBLICANS have the lead. The Republican Party is a Corrupt Party controlled by BILLIONAIRE donors, many of who supported the Jan 6th attempted coup, promoted by Trump, and 19 Republicans currently in office.

Majorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gaser, Mike Lee, etc.

The GOP is no longer a political organization. It is a CRIMINAL one, like Donald J Trump's Administration was. The evidence is overwhelming. He and many of his advisors are under serious investigation for a variety of serious charges.

Jack Smith, the Special Prosecutor, appointed by the Attorney General is reported closer to dropping a Criminal INDICTMENT bomb on "Dirty Diaper Donnie" and an estimate 24 of his henchmen.

It is time for Citizens to recognize that Country supersede PARTY.

This nation is on the tipping edge of a potential WORLD War with Putin, Chi, Kim, and the Ayatollah controlling Iran. All of these countries are controlled by one man.

It is time for the citizens of America to stand together, not attack each other. Putin has been involved with Trump for over 20 years, and has active personnel in the USA working to sabotage America.  

However, at this juncture REPUBLICANS have the lead. The Republican Party is a Corrupt Party controlled by BILLIONAIRE donors

The Democrat party also has it's billionaire donors so I think that's a wash.  Both parties are in it for the power and the money.  As someone once said, it's good to be a prince.

It is time for Citizens to recognize that Country supersede PARTY.

I've been saying this for a while.  The problem is that the partisans only recognize that the other party is the corrupt one and their party is on the side of light and good.  It's time for citizens to recognize that both parties are corrupt and in it for themselves.  

Just an observation: Snuffy, you write "both sides are partisan" so as not to differentiate any differences between what the sides are fighting to accomplish. Recently, China made a statement about the U.S. holding to a double standard by insisting they, China, not help Russia fight against Ukraine.  All while the U.S A. sends military aid to Ukraine to fight Russia. Is it a proper double-standard?

No, it is not. Nuance matters. Russia - a more powerful nation, attacked Ukraine - a weaker nation, in an attempt to take away its sovereign territory and independence. Russia is an aggressor. The nation that has not kept the peace. Ukraine has the right to have any nation that can do so come to its aid.  There is no double standard present there.

Or here. Republicans are the aggressors who seek to pass laws to keep our and other societies and nations from respecting and treating liberals and democrats with the same respect they want for themselves.

Democrats are working to liberate groups of people/minorities who have long been oppressed and left on the margins of society

Nuance matters?  So does context.  What was I replying to, take that into context for my reply.  

But your partisan bullshit is just that, bullshit.  Democrats passed laws to keep themselves in power based on the party determination of where that power is just like Republicans do.  Your line of 

Democrats are working to liberate groups of people/minorities who have long been oppressed and left on the margins of society

is bullshit plain and simple.  Democrats do what they do to get people to vote for them so that they can stay in power.  Republicans do what they do so that people will vote for them so that they can stay in power.  With power comes money.  Plain and simple.  Your defense of Democrats show that  you are part of the problem.  Until the people rise up and reclaim control of the government this kabuki theater will continue.

Until the people rise up and reclaim control of the government this kabuki theater will continue.

"The people" - What "the people" might you have in mind, Snuffy? Point them out of the 'crowd' already!

I presume with such a crappy-patty attitude about the two prevalent sides - some are 'back-benchers' who don't care to participate in the party system or voting franchise. So, what "people" do you have in sufficient numbers that we can 'muster' change and government reclamation?

Some of us can't wait around for attitudes to take a 'thousand years' to change, we have to vote change 'up' and for that we have to choose which party is worth our efforts considering the positives and negatives in real time!

I am sorry you feel I am a partisan-actually I don't care that you do. I know who/what/why/how/where I am in my comments and that's all right with me!

Democrats do a lot of nice things for people, plural.  Republicans do not do a lot of things for my people, plural. I am comfortable voting for a people-centric party.

"The people" - What "the people" might you have in mind, Snuffy?

The voting public.  That's who is usually meant when someone talks about "the people" in that context.

I am sorry you feel I am partisan, actually I don't care that you do. I know who/what/why/how/where I am in my comments and that's all right with me!

I don't care either.  Don't bother replying to me anymore as you view everything thru your lens of your partisanship and ignore what doesn't meet your world view.  You only want a conversation when it's on your terms and refuse to acknowledge that other people's opinions may be just as valid as yours, and you are rather condescending in your replys if it's not your world view.  Have a nice life.

Ditto.

"It is time for Citizens to recognize that Country supersede PARTY.

Snuffy: "I've been saying this for a while".

Well, then it is time for you to get the TATTOO!

Snuffy, are you still in the CARTOON business?

I believe the phrase being looked for is: "Humble servant/s." Is humility a by-gone state in our politics? Now, we hear about politicians with egos, vendettas, and outsized "personalities" who in many ways have turned their daily professional lives arguably into episodic scenes/events similar to daytime 'stories' - and like those shows the drama is never-ending.

SUGGESTION:  THINK-TANKS: Remove them literally, not figuratively, out of Washington, D.C. proper. Send them away from close proximity to leadership.

You really think that Think-Tanks proximity to DC is the issue? Emails, texting, and online face time can accomplish the same damn thing. It is their money that is the issue. They are the same thing as a PAC. In fact many PAC's financially support Think-Tanks work.

Let them spend money for 'face-time' in D.C.  BTW,  I read your critique, but I don't read is a SUGGESTION from you: It's missing.

Re-Instate the "DEATH PENALTY" for Treason, it is a deterrent.

In defense of CB, his intention, I believe, is to get them out of Washington, DC, because they are daily, along with their lobbyists swarming elected officials with MONEY, pressure, threats to their career, offers of lucrative positions when they retire if they "go along to get along". 

The issue is not one that should be tangled up with syndics. Attack the criminals, not the witness to the crime.

Since the Revolutionary War, political corruption has been a plague. And, to this day, it still is.

Hmm.

"Re-Instate the "DEATH PENALTY" for Treason, it is a deterrent."

I recall reading an opinion many years ago that in fact the death penalty is not a deterrent, and I can recall two reasons why. 

1.  Mistakes can be made and we all have seen cases where persons so convicted and sentenced were in fact later determined to be innocent.  In Canada the famous case of Steven Truscott was one of the reasons Canada no longer imposes the death penalty. 

2.  A juror might lie to be appointed to a jury swearing that they would approve a death penalty when in fact they would hang the jury.   

Correct.  The death penalty is ONLY a deterrent for the subject as it insures that person never again commits a crime.  It is not much of a deterrent for other criminals as per studies a lot of criminals don't believe they will be caught.

I'm against the death penalty.  I think it's a huge waste of resources.  When a person is sentenced to death, they go on death row at a higher per prisoner cost for incarceration.  Add to this all the appeals and court time this person will incur as they work to overturn the sentence,  all of this is paid for by the taxpayer as the prisoner has no job for income.  The average time spend on death row before sentence is carried out is almost 25 years.  That's a lot of time to spend a lot of money when for less money they could have been sentenced to life without parole and put into the general population.

And even if they DO get caught they're going to think that a clever lawyer will either get them off the hook completely or be able to reduce the penalty.   The death penalty isn't really more than a revenge opportunity, besides, as you say, remove the criminal from doing further damage.  I wonder which takes precedence - Thou Shalt Not Kill, or A Tooth for a Tooth, an Eye for an Eye.

The "Think Tanks", in reality, are "STINK TANK", financed by corporate and billionaires DIRTY MONEY. 

It is time for elected officials to work together by expelling the CRIMINALS in their midst.

The MAFIA was brought to its knees. So can CORRUPT, SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS who are getting rich serving the "RICH"!

FUGAZY them!

Think tanks, on both sides, have a lot of motivated reasoning (confirmation/justificiation of any one-sided perspective) occurring within them.

Really, our Think Tank is:

The Bird Dropping Institute - We are a Think/Stink Tank for Morons, No Idiots, please, located in Mildew, Ohio where there are NO JOBS, not even BLOW JOBS, since RePuritans came to town and closed our factory down.

Now, we are in the Tourist business. Come See Us!
We are just a "SHARP RIGHT TURN" from Anywhere, America.

If you are driving, we are the second sign past the one that says, "TWILIGHT ZONE"!

Make a sharp right turn and you are there. Don't be put off by the barbwire fence, the machine gun turrets, or the minefield.

That's for decorations, only.  It used to work, but Re-Puritians shut it down, too. 

Sin-cer-ely,


Jonathan Livingston Pigeon-Poo, "Doctored"

Don't be put off by the barbwire fence, the machine gun turrets, or the minefield.

So, is this institute in a castle or on a compound?

What are your solutions to containing or getting rid of "CORRUPTION In POLITICS"?

My mentor, and I are working on a new book, "Whoopers We Have Told, Sold & Stole", now on sale at most Christian Book Stores.

George Santos is such a liar that he convinced the publisher that the book needed to be published, now! Critics have acclaimed it as a masterpiece. Not one word is true. Not one word appears in the book. 

Folks bought it due to its title. The rest is blank, except for the listing of our name.

If you would like a copy sent to you just pay $8.00 per month and we will send you your very own FREE BOOK.

Thank you, the authors:

George Santos, (R, NY) and now a newly electrocuted, erected, Congressional Drag Queen and recipient of the LIARS CLUB AWARD for 2023.

And, the "Less Than Prestigious" Jonathan Livingston Pigeon-Poo, "Doctored". If you don't think he is "doctored", look in his medicine cabinet. He takes one, two, maybe three hundred pills a day.  If he ain't "doctored", who the HELL is?

"Whoopers We Have Told, Sold & Stole", now on sale. . . .

George Santos is such a liar that he convinced the publisher that the book needed to be published, now! Critics have acclaimed it as a masterpiece. Not one word is true. Not one word appears in the book. Folks bought it due to its title. The rest is blank, except for the listing of our name.

I would like a personally signed 'skank' copy, please.

If you would like a copy sen[d] to you just pay $8.00 per month and we will send you your very own FREE BOOK.

Wait! What??!!