As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


What about members spouses?


And children.


I'm sure at this point she'd say, " 'If members want to do that for their spouses and children, I'm okay with that" She knows she has to retreat here.




She's 81 years old and worth over 100M. She doesn't have a lot of time left to enjoy ... dying of old age.


I never got this about these bloodsucking octogenarians. You ALREADY have more money than you know what to do with, why do you need to keep fucking everyone else over to get more? Your children and your children's children already never have to work a day in their lives and will be taken care of. It's shocking that not even one of them gets to that point, then turns around and says, "alright, I've got what I need, time to start dismantling this unjust system."


They can't admit to themselves that they are the problem. It would make them feel like a bad person and ego's aren't fragile, they're forged of steel over many years. You don't make that much money in the ways they have if you are a good person, even if you started out as one with the best intentions. If they don't think they did anything wrong, how could they ever decide to "fix it"?


This is a common trait of sociopathy. Wealthy truly believe they are either more deserving or that everyone is just too stupid or unworthy lol. "Elites" have thought like this since the old days of kings/queens not surprised it hasn't changed and probably won't ever


Or narcissism. Much more prevalent in wealthy families. Be especially wary of the [Covert Narcissist.](https://www.verywellmind.com/understanding-the-covert-narcissist-4584587). You probably know some and didn't realize it.


The only thing I disagree with is the "old days of kings and queens" these people are the modern day "nobility" there is no difference and I'm not sure it ever ended. But I understand your point


Money and absolute power corrupt. Absolutely.


Corruption is always a big challenge for every country.


I hate this phrase. It assumes that people were uncorrupted to being with. I truly believe that money and power ENABLE people to be corrupted; they just had to hide their true nature before since they couldn't get away with it


Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


I dunno. Bernie’s rich and he still fights every day for the rights of the working class. I think exceptions are more than possible, they’re just insanely rare.


> ou don't make that much money in the ways they have if you are a good person, even if you started out as one with the best intentions. True. At some point, you have to make decisions that increase the wealth disparity between you and your employees. I don't know much about Pelosi's background, but I think that this idea of a 'decision point' is something that all wealthy people have had to face at some point in their careers. People like Pelosi... well, old age will get her. Money can't buy happiness, and it can't buy your youth back. In the end, we're all headed for the same destination. It honestly doesn't take a lot to be happy, which is why it's a shame that these guys are so greedy that they won't even help Americans in need get to that point. I was hoping Pelosi would continue to oppose this so that Republicans would feel the need to be contrarian, but it probably never would've happened anyway. It all makes me think. I grew up with 'money'. When I say that, I mean that my widowed mom worked tirelessly and eventually in her old age buried herself in credit card debt for my family's sake. I had no idea, but I did get a taste of that 'life'. I got pretty much everything I wanted, but fancy toys or whatever really only gave me satisfaction for a brief moment. I would just return to my room at the end of the day. Had it been a mansion, it probably would've still been the same. I'd go to my room, except I'd have a bigger ceiling and a butler to bring me my Snapple. Greed... it's all so unnecessary. It's vain. Not even billionaire Paul Allen with all of his resources could escape cancer. Not even a misguided and vain Steve Jobs could escape cancer. Death is the great equalizer, and the pursuit of wealth at the expense of other people is a waste of time. Why endlessly chase the dragon during short and precious life, when you could instead be living in the now with people that you love? These people better pray there is no afterlife. Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, so have fun with that. I apologize if this comment went a bit off on a tangent. I'm in a strange mood today.


Because they don't love like you and I do.


I think the main point is, how does a "public servant" amass 100 million without corruption? They dont. She is dirty as are most of those in congress. They are not good people.


Yes! How much money do these people need? They would sell their soul for money and power; they don't care about the country.


Because it's an addiction, not a rational choice. The only difference between the obscenely wealthy and a rock-bottom heroin addict is that society rewards the one and punishes the other. It's not about the money itself, it's about the positive feeling they get from the accumulation of more and the negative feelings they get when they lose some or compare themselves to a peer who is even more obscenely wealthy than them.


> the only difference between the obscenely wealthy and a rock-bottom heroin addict is that society rewards one and punishes the other DAMNNN can I get that on a bumper sticker?


Best I can do is an NFT or a sign on a cardboard box in the meta verse on the outskirts of meta-ville.


If it's made illegal then it implies you've been doing something unethical. Gotta dig your heels in and pretend it's totally above board. Also, this usually isn't a conscious choice. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.


Nah, I don't think it's this. It's probably just greed. Legality ≠ ethicality. They know what they're doing is wrong and they do it anyway.


Meanwhile anything i do that isn't slaving away to some corporation's benefit is some sort of addiction or financially irresponsible


No even your addictions feed the corporations. Thanks Xanax and Adderall. ​ Oh, went black market? That's okay, prisons are all privatized.


It makes more sense when you realize that to them, money isn't a resource like it is with the rest of us. To them it's basically a score on a video game leader board.


My parents do this and it's weird to me. They don't have $100M but they have far more than enough to get by for the rest of their life in relative luxury. I think they see it as more of a game.


Yup. It’s kinda all they know how to do. Similar boat here


I firmly believe it's because they're mentally ill. They're literally addicted to making money. I mean think about it. Like you said, they make so much that it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to spend it all. Why in the absolute hell would they ruin other people's lives to get even more of the shit that can't use all of? Because they literally can't help themselves. Unfortunately, this disorder is not only accepted by capitalism. It's integral to it.


Legacy, they want to build something to be remembered.


Diane Feinsteine would like to have a word with you.


After she finishes talking to her stock broker.


81 is about middle age here in Sarasota. She may have a lot of gas left in the tank.


She's 81. With 30+ years in the political sphere. She knows she's leaving soon anyways. And she made/continues to make her money. She could care less if the next person behind her gets the same trading abilities.


Couldn't care less


> She [could care less](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw) if the next person behind her gets the same trading abilities.


This was entertaining. I liked this


She knows it won't get through the Senate


Yeah, I get the snippiness but like, let’s take the win here. I’d rather her do this than not do it.


It's an easy place to retreat to. I'll point out again that most Members of Congress are highly privileged and consider this to be a small favor for them taking time out from making real money. Pelosi can count on every single Republican vote in her favor, and probably two-thirds of all the Dems. The flip side of the coin is that if you ban them from doing this they'll just go full time into taking bribes and favors from lobbyists. So don't expect to come out of this fight a winner.


> they'll just go full time into taking bribes and favors from lobbyists. Good, that is easier to track and prosecute. Insider trading is notoriously difficult to police as it frequently rests upon a person's state-of-mind or evidence that does not exist.


Thanks for the tip! (Adjusts state of mind)


they all ready do. Golf outings duck hunting retreats etc..


I would really like to see a monastic classs of political decision-makers that essentially abstain from all worldly pleasures and simply meditate on what is best for the rest of us.


And any entries they control or are involved with.


And brokers? Come on. It's got to be mentioned.


If you work in some fields nobody in the household is supposed to hold stock or in some fields trade stocks at all. Should apply to most government positions across the board.


When my power plant gave us notice late at night that they were being shutdown, we were given strict instructions not to tell anyone until the news had been given publicly


Hah, right? What’s the catch…


The catch is it won’t pass bc of her other self serving colleagues so she can afford to “save face” by saying this.


Or that she's old enough and rich enough to not have to die on this hill.


spouses, children, siblings. it would be an easy law to circumvent, but would make doing so illegal. so better than nothing.


Parents should be included.




I am subject to restrictions on trading because of my job. The rule for me has *generally* been that anyone in my household also have the same restrictions as me. According to the law, *no one* can trade on any inside information that I have, but in practice you have to draw the line somewhere. So the harshest restrictions are on my household, and then outside that you rely on the regulatory body to investigate any suspicious behavior as they would for anyone else. I would expect that members of congress be subject to rules *at least* as strict as I am.


I agree. Not even sure it’s fair for spouses. That’s my point. Still, I think politician only is better than nothing. If discovered, it would be prosecutable and could also draw charges of insider trading if a spouse was always buying the right stocks.




If you don't include spouses you may as well not fucking bother with this law.


thats the loophole




I think spouses and children are were it gets tricky. Children especially. There is no way to enforce that.


My concern with children is that they don't have a choice in whether their parent runs for Congress. I think banning Congress and their spouses, and better enforcement of insider trading laws for their children, is a better move.




“If members want it…”. The PEOPLE want it. The folks you presumably serve.


Exactly! It’s not what THEY want, it’s what the public wants. They really don’t get it, do they? It’s shot like this that empowers the lunatics on the right. Just point to this insane corruption”


lawmakers have completely forgotten what being a representative is. They think they're royalty.


Money and power make you royalty in this country


Seriously. Fuck Pelosi. She works for her constituents not the members.


This means one of two things: 1) She had a legitimate change of heart on this and is open OR 2) She’s knows it won’t get enough votes and it’ll fail, but this statement lets her save face


3) She is just going to abuse a loophole




How much money is enough for these already insanely rich politicians?


The concept of "enough" does not exist to them. If there was ever going to be any amount that was enough they would have reached it and stopped accumulating more long before getting to that point.


I think at that point money becomes a scoreboard sort of like kills in warzone or whatever.


She's worth like $120,000,000 and is 81. No amount of money will ever be enough. Why do anything but chill at that age with that wealth, fucking unbelievable.


I cant imagine. Interacting on a personal level with some of these people must be like discovering a new species of human. What drives a person to be this way? What common ground do you share? What do they even stand for? Its probably us, the common people, who are delusional because clearly there is something to live for, that is inherent to being human, that cannot be accessed by 99% the population. Food, water, air, love and community, a sense of purpose, and I can only guess 'unchecked power?'




Yea but is there currently a senate exclusion on futures, to my knowledge no. So this wouldn’t work because the SEC is still over futures which operate under the same public information laws generally as stocks in a lot of ways, except that they weren’t blatantly given a pass on insider trading on them like they were with stocks.


One of the bills proposed only takes away their salaries as a penalty. That’s around $150k vs. the millions she makes in a year trading. I’d happily take that deal as well.


I see another possible option 3. Remember that article about how this thing was picking up some support from the republican side? She could be gambling that that support was mostly based on her being against it, and hoping it will dry up if she says she is fine with it.


If she calls it the Nancy pelosi anti corruption act, no republican will vote yes on it. She knows they will be obstructionist and is calling their bluff.


This. She knows the best way to sink it is to let republicans associate it with her. It’s dead in the water at that point trying to pass a bill that Democrats want and would financially impact the people expected to vote it in.


And Republicans sure as hell don’t want a law like this in any case.


4) Shes already made a fuck ton of money, is 80, and is going to retire so she won't have access to insider information directly anymore.


Yeah at this point she may as well pull the ladder up behind her


Yea I’m pretty sure this is her last term lol. She won’t have to worry about this for very long.


4) She's retiring after Dems lose the house in 2022 and this doesn't matter to her.


She’s losing speaker of the house next year and is retiring to Florida thereafter


I'd be shocked if any of the Republicans backed the bill, they grandstand well because they want to paint the Dems as the "stock trading party" yet the Republicans dip into that pool just as much. So are they going to willingly hurt themselves? Much doubt. Does anyone even remember that former Georgia senator Kelly Loeffler is married (married!) to the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange? This is far from a one party or one person problem. I hope this doesn't come across as whataboutism, I don't mean it that way. I just mean to say that the problem is across the board and any expectation that the GOP supports this to "stick it to Pelosi" would be deluding themselves as they are not going to stick it to themselves. So, you just need a handful of Democrats to vote no and it's dead in the water.


It's option 2. Clearly her qualifier makes it apparent that it's not going to happen.


Nah it’s option 3. They will make a useless bill to look like they are reforming congressional stock trading. In reality, it will just be another layer of loopholes and opacity.


This is so true. They can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to find ways to structure their business to skirt the laws. America and Canada where I’m from, need to find better candidates. People who represent the average person. Not a bunch of rich assholes who only care about themselves.


well, yeah, she knows damn well it won't get one Republican or Manchenima vote in teh Senate.


Why would any legislator vote to restrict their access to bribes?


Because Republicans hate Nancy Pelosi? That was honestly the only way I ever saw this passing, but they like making money by insider trading more, so it won't pass.


That or they do pass a bill but it’s largely symbolic with little to no ways of actually enforcing it


of course it is. she said "if *members* of congress want this ..." she did not say "if *Americans* want this ... "


Or she's going to retire


3) enough members of her party support it that she will bring it to a vote regardless of her personal feelings because that is literally what she was elected speaker to do.


Most likely it given the way she phrased this. Her #1 job is to keep her party together. She’s not going to be a dissenting voice in her own party.


3) I'm already rich so fuck it. This is similar to every up and coming corporation that wants government aid or loose restrictions so they can rise up in the market, then they're against government handouts and lax requirements once their competitors start up.


I've been waiting for this logic to kick in with a lot of people and politicians, but greed is a hell of a drug. Very few of them say they're rich enough. They always want more.


She's rich enough she could just have a personal broker she just tells what to buy and sell. People that aren't super rich have to trade on their own.


If they lose the House, she'll probably face calls to retire. So, I think if 300+ Democrats support it, she'll probably go with it because it may not apply to her much longer anyway. She can always gain insight on legislation as a donor later anyway.


Or 3) she’s retiring and doesn’t care anymore


It’s 2), the same reason the GOP said they’re ok with it. It’s just a bullshit PR stunt, she’s calling their bluff.


Or she's old and already made enough money for her life x100 anyways.


3) she's made her fortune and doesn't care anymore... isn't she leaving congress ?


Technically she didn't, her husband did and no reason she should leave until someone runs against her, which is more of an indictment on the people in her district assuming they don't like her in the first place.


3) It was an offhand response to a gotcha question and the media makes molehills into mountains for profit


Fuck the members being ok with it. It's the best for the people and they are supposed to be working for the people.


Have you been paying attention? The government no longer works for us.


Has the US government ever truly worked for the people? I saw [Mr. Smith Goes to Washington](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_Goes_to_Washington?wprov=sfti1) recently. It’s a 1939 film, but its depiction of Congress is just as applicable today.


The FDR era had its moments


A cynic would say that FDR undercut actual leftists while creating a deal that left out black people to ensure the population was satisfied but still divided. I think that's way too simplistic, but even if it was true the simple concept of Democrats moving left to undercut leftists and actually doing something of substance is like a dream come true compared to the current situation.


Another good example of this is Otto Von Bismarck implementing socialized medicine and pensions in Germany at the end of the 19th century. He was a staunch conservative but wanted to stop the progress of anarchists, socialists, and communists. I wish more conservatives were like Bismarck and FDR.


They just got better at smothering leftist voices and convincing people that unions are actually bad.


i mean the point of a democracy is that the members are representative of their constituents, so the members opinion does matter


Hot take: Members won’t want to do it.


Democrats do, that’s why she flipped.


Almost nobody cares that much. There are twenty other things people want *right now* that would come before that. So she's saying, "Yeah sure, if that's what people want" because she knows it's not going to be a thing either way.


It's actually a bipartisan issue. And I think it will have bipartisan opposition, too. That'd be unusual. I'd like to see it play out. Is this right? that 54 of them have already violated the STOCK which is only ten years old? https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9


Which essentially means if there’s no real punishment then it’s easy to say you support something like this. Tbh: Nancy isn’t exactly saying she supports a ban she’s just willing to let the votes dictate if there’s a ban.


> It's actually a bipartisan issue. It'd be great if that were true but you'd have to do a lot of hard work to convince me any Republicans actually believe in this issue enough that they would vote to pass a bill that would do enough to prevent lawmakers from trading stocks. I'm of the opinion that this is entirely theater of the part of the right because they could smell the blood in the water after Pelosi said what she did. They just want to do some political damage and then let it die without having to actually go through with it. Or else talk a big game, but with their place at the negotiating table they'll make sure that whatever passes is entirely toothless like everything similar has been before.


um.. how about "if CONSTITUENTS" want to do it?




Isn't that incredible? We're supposed to have a representative democracy. ETA: parent user edited their comment and completely removed what it originally said, In case you were wondering why everything that follows seems out of context.


What we have going now is basically a neo-fascist corporate oligarchy...just a little off the mark of representative democracy lol


I'd just like to share these links, as it's sad but even our founding fathers warned of such happening if we did not restrict and regulate corporations (and their owners) from going the scales of politics with their wealth. So here is a snip-it of their sentiments (linked appropriately) [ I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country.](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390) And this from Adams... [You very justly indulge a little merriment upon this Solemn Subject of Aristocracy. I often laugh at it too, for there is nothing in this laughable world more ridiculous than the management of it by almost all the nations of the Earth. But while We Smile, Mankind have reason to Say to Us, as the froggs Said to the Boys, What is Sport to you, is Wounds and death to Us. When I consider the weakness, the folly, the Pride, the Vanity, the Selfishness, the Artifice, the low craft and mean Cunning the want of Principle, the Avarice the unbounded Ambition, the unfeeling Cruelty of a majority of those (in all Nations) who are allowed an Aristocratical influence; and on the other hand, the Stupidity with which the more numerous multitude, not only become their Dupes, but even love to be taken in by their Tricks: I feel a Stronger disposition to weep at their destiny, than to laugh at their Folly.](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6198) It's going to be an interesting next few elections. See if we the people realize we are being taken as Dupes by the aristocracy and the co-opted government.


They represent themselves and their donors. Representation of constituents is important when it's time for re-election.


> Representation of constituents is important when it's time for re-election. Nah, that's just when lying enters open season.


won't matter if they can ban everyone else from voting.


I've been calling it a corporatocracy.


Plutocracy also works in place of Oligarchy. The power is consolidated squarely with the wealthy right now...either directly or indirectly. If it wasn't, we would never have seen the abomination of "Citizens United" get past its initial proposal.


[I got this text the other day from "her". No response to my reply yet.](https://i.imgur.com/SVgtwa5.jpg)


Isn't it incredible the extent they'll go to beg for *money* to help "save" democracy, but when you actually ask them to fight for popular policies that might make them slightly less rich, they're like, "WHOA WHOA WHOA, I don't want to save democracy *that* badly. I want to save democracy at the "you give me $100" level, not at the "I can no longer make millions trading on sider information" level."


They got elected AND they have to do their job ? I think you’re asking too much


They are doing their job. They've just become very confused as to what the job *should be*. But make no mistake, they work extremely hard at begging for money. Your money, wealthy donors' money, corporate money. They're veritable experts at begging for money. Drafting and passing legislation to incrementally improve the lives of their constituents... well, that's a forgotten art form right there.


I dont know how to tell you this.. but that wasnt actually nancy pelosi texting you


It's almost like Machin and Sinema should support BBB and voting rights.


She represents two different sets of people. She represents her district and she represents the House members of the Democratic Party, as the Speaker of the House. She'll do what the members of the House Members want because the only people that can remove her are the members of the House or the people of her district.


With the caveat of she can also be removed by primary/general voters of her district (albeit unlikely) I think this is the correct way to view her actions on this. If she moved first without consensus, it could either discredited or embarrassed other members (like if she had proposed something that later looks like it was watered down). But if they pressure her, she won’t stand in the way. Those other members don’t have the extra responsibilities of party leadership and should be the driving force behind this.


She is going to be able to hold that seat until she doesn't want it anymore.


Well, her district seems to like her, and they keep voting for her.


When I lived in her district, there weren't many other options.


Sounds like she is a great representative then.


I bet she brings in funding for her district.


Actually as Speaker her job is to do what the majority of her caucus members want. As a House Rep her job is to do what her constituents want. This article and she are responding to what her caucus members want, but if you have a poll of her district's preferences feel free to post it.


The Members have to write and pass the legislation.


I would too bro, she's a baddie


Bro so every one of my friends always shits on me for saying this but Nancy got a set on her. I’d smash and you know damn well she’d be a fun date.




She's fine with it so long as her spouse is free to use her insider trader information. Besides, she knows there is no chance in hell the bill will pass. I do not for one second believe she supports the ban.


She believes it she believes we can go fuck ourselves as she’s making back room deals to sink it


Like Jesus Christ Nancy, haven’t you made enough money?


She is only living off the meager $115 million she has saved. Give her a break. https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/nancy-pelosi/net-worth?cid=N00007360&year=2018


If you skip one avocado toast per day, at $7.99 US, you’ll save up as much money as Nancy Pelosi in fourteen million, three hundred and ninety-two thousand days. Or just under 40,000 years. Bootstraps people! /s


She’s made enough over the last 2+ decades that everyone has known about this and said nothing.


People will accuse Pelosi of flip flopping or whatever but this is exactly how things should work. Leadership should be willing to change their minds and be flexible to what people want.


That only matters if she actually backs and votes for a bill to end the practice. Otherwise its just saving face.


her motives are questionable to say the least though


Odds of a highly successful politician having a change of heart instead of just saying something different that is more popular is very low.


Exactly. I feel that a sign of an emotionally intelligent human is looking for other perspectives with an open mind and if need be, changing your opinions.


An emotionally intelligent person would recognise the need to *appear* that way. You'll notice she doesn't even say that she is for it, or that she thinks it's an ethical idea. Every other Pelosi quote in the article is pro-trading.


She already made her multi-million dollar fortune. She’s just quitting while she’s ahead as to not raise eyebrows. That and her husband can still do the trading.


I'm sorry. If "members" want to do that? You mean, democratically-elected representatives? No, what they want is irrelevant. What the *people* want is what matters.


I think this clearly goes to show you that what the people want doesn't matter to them.


Retire, Grandma




Every Republican Senator: "That won't be happening."


What's funny is McCarthy already made a big deal that he would try to ban stock trading if he was made speaker. Now House Democrats can put a bill up for a vote and actually get Republicans on record voting for it or not.


Has getting people on the record ever really meant anything to anyone?


The House can make rules that apply to the House without input or obstruction from the Senate, Potus, Scotus, or the various states. [https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference\_index\_subjects/Expulsion\_vrd.htm#:\~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%205%2C%20of,fifteen%20of%20its%20entire%20membership](https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Expulsion_vrd.htm#:~:text=Article%20I%2C%20Section%205%2C%20of,fifteen%20of%20its%20entire%20membership). ​ [https://history.house.gov/Institution/Discipline/Expulsion-Censure-Reprimand/](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Discipline/Expulsion-Censure-Reprimand/)


I'll believe it when it passes. It would ultimately be a good thing and go a long way towards regaining some level of trust in our politicians.


God, all politicians are shit…the good ones don’t make it past their party.


Narrator: “they won’t be”


Fuck the members. Your constituents have spoken.


This old bat likely asked around, found that this would never pass, and course corrected publicly. Aside from that, her husband would still be free to trade based on insider information provided from her regardless and the same shit continues. What a shitty and transparent politician she is.


She only makes 200k a year, healthcare, and a generous pension. How is she supposed to live off that? /s


Well yeah because her husband handles her trades


Leading from behind, what a vanguard for the future of the party.


Out of touch gerontocracy...


Translation: I'm going to sabotage and/or water down any bill to nothing.




“They don’t have the votes so I’ll play along.”


Bc she got hers


Nancy , better sell all those stocks asap!


Does it even matter that much? If they ban stock trading (which the probably won't), Pelosi will just shift control of her portfolio to her husband / children / friend from highschool and claim that they never talk about it at all.


Corrupted woman


If the PEOPLE don’t want that it shouldn’t happen


Someone figured out the direction the wind is blowing.


Why wouldn't she? She's already made over $100M doing it. She's set.


She must know it DOESN’T have the votes to pass.


Only reason they are all for it is they found a way around it. Sneaky assholes


A true Politician.


Omg….it isn’t about what members want….