Aaron Thomas wrote to All <=-
The US Rep for my district is Josh Riley (D). He "defeated" a RINO rep
2 years ago on "I'll lower your electric bill." It never happened, the electric bills are still outrageously high ($371 now while I'm not even using heat)
and that fkhead is campaigning with the same slogan now in
his re-election campaign!
"I'll never stop fighting the electric companies until your bills are
back to normal!"
I found out that he owns stock in the local power company's parent company, which is probably just a coincidence, but in reality:
This year's elections will indicate how smart people in my district
are.
Hey, it worked for him before. And the Elitists think voters are
stupid. So why pay for a new slogan?
I found out that he owns stock in the local power company's parent company, which is probably just a coincidence, but in reality:
I smell Conflict of Interest here. He should not own stock in a company he regulates.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
But when it's a leftist spending other peoples' money, no price is too high.
Wasn't there a proposed law to make it illegal for congress members to trade stocks at all?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
In that case it's probably better to screen candidates for stock
ownership before voting for them. Not because investing is bad, but
becaue it almost guarantees to have an impact on the elected official's behavior.
I think good independent audits and harsh punishments will work best.
I'm still waiting to see an audit of how certain members of Congress became millionaires while never working.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
This is why I'd say that all of them should be screened. They have no
job (most of them) to begin with, they become members of congress, and suddenly they have gold bars from Egypt in the closet.
If a member of congress takes a second job as a bus driver while
serving, that's fine, or if they want to buy lottery tickets that's
fine too,
but it's not fine to trade stocks. They become "insiders" as
soon as they attend their first closed session.
that there was a paper trail. The check came from my bank. My bank had records of me putting the money away for years, etc. There would certainly be a check, but everything would have a trail.
Now compare that to a member of Congress. I'm sure there were alarms,
but why was there no investigation like there would be for a regular person? Back to our Two-Tiered System of Justice.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
You're right that the stock trading is a small piece of the puzzle, and
it could possibly be a dead end for investigation. Congress members
aren't bribed with shares, so the focus needs to be on other things. We need the DOJ to do detective work to figure out who would want to bribe them, and we need them to monitor their communications. Bob Menendez is proof that congress members can't be trusted without surveillance.
(Oaths are for suckers.)
On one hand, we should monitor their communications all the time. And, according to the law, we do. But as we found with
Hillary and her "personal" servers and phones, there are easy ways
around those rules.
| Sysop: | deepend |
|---|---|
| Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
| Users: | 324 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 64:59:57 |
| Calls: | 2,715 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 6,596 |
| D/L today: |
37 files (11,370K bytes) |
| Messages: | 494,127 |