• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress votes to eliminate key requirement of insider trading law

Cardinal said:
The level of security risk was one of the main premises for eliminating the key requirement. As Pbrauer already posted, "The reasoning for this change was to prevent cyber criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons." So if staffers and family members are made vulnerable by the requirement, why aren't the congressmen?
Click to expand...

Yes, the risk is the same. The difference is in the amount of risk staffers should be exposed to versus elected officials. That is the part you seem to be having difficulty with. You can keep building this strawman, but it ain't gunna fly. No one has said the risk would be different with the same exposure. You have been continuously less than honest in this thread, please stop.

Demanding greater transparency of our elected representatives and those who could profit from their connections to them is treating them like ****?
Click to expand...

Demanding people prove themselves innocent in public simply to hold down a job is treating them like ****. Oversight is not the issue. Staffers will still be subject to oversight.
 
Redress said:
Yes, the risk is the same. The difference is in the amount of risk staffers should be exposed to versus elected officials. That is the part you seem to be having difficulty with. You can keep building this strawman, but it ain't gunna fly. No one has said the risk would be different with the same exposure. You have been continuously less than honest in this thread, please stop.
Click to expand...

Strawman? What the hell? Here's an idea, cut the "you're being dishonest" crap. Just interacting with you has been an extraordinary act of charity since upon first entering you have been unbearably condescending and supercilious. Go for a run, have a glass of wine, whatever it takes...chill out. And if you find that interacting with me is too odious, just stop replying altogether.

Demanding people prove themselves innocent in public simply to hold down a job is treating them like ****. Oversight is not the issue. Staffers will still be subject to oversight.
Click to expand...

By that logic even the requirement for congressmen to be more transparent is unnecessary because oversight exists for them as well. But the increased transparency makes execution of that oversight much more likely.
 
Lachean said:
Thats the bill as it stands now, it was gutted.
Click to expand...
Really? Where are the amendments? I would have linked Public law 113-7, but it wasn't available when I looked.

ALL ACTIONS:

4/11/2013:
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2583-2584; text as passed Senate: CR S2584; text of measure as introduced: CR S2593)
4/11/2013 5:33pm:
Received in the House.
4/11/2013:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
4/11/2013 6:07pm:
Held at the desk.
4/12/2013 12:52pm:
Mr. Cantor asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
4/12/2013 12:52pm:
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H1978-1979)
4/12/2013 12:53pm:
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H1979)
4/12/2013 12:53pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
4/12/2013:
Presented to President.
4/15/2013:
Signed by President.
4/15/2013:
Became Public Law No: 113-7.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Really? Where are the amendments? I would have linked Public law 113-7, but it wasn't available when I looked.

ALL ACTIONS:

4/11/2013:
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2583-2584; text as passed Senate: CR S2584; text of measure as introduced: CR S2593)
4/11/2013 5:33pm:
Received in the House.
4/11/2013:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
4/11/2013 6:07pm:
Held at the desk.
4/12/2013 12:52pm:
Mr. Cantor asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
4/12/2013 12:52pm:
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H1978-1979)
4/12/2013 12:53pm:
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H1979)
4/12/2013 12:53pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
4/12/2013:
Presented to President.
4/15/2013:
Signed by President.
4/15/2013:
Became Public Law No: 113-7.
Click to expand...

No idea, my source was last night's Daily Show:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom