> Well that's kind of a bad argument, because if "we voted on issues..." we're just declaring that this is one of the issues (etc.) that needs voted on and the resolution is to prohibit these transactions...
Ah! So, we are approaching democracy. I am saying this is not an issue, there are others that are saying it is. Honesty, lets see if the House votes in your favor, my popcorn is popped.
> So the issue we elected politicians to fix was politicians trading stocks.
Some people see this as an issue, others don't.
But, I understand that I am messaging in a place that has opinions that are different than mine. However, I owe my livelihood to having read this place as a teenager. So, here I am.
I know when I one day run for office, the members of this board, likely, would not vote for me. I still like to exercise my thoughts and ideas in a familiar community.
> The ideology is that politicians shouldn't trade stocks because they vote on bills that they have inside knowledge on.
That is one ideology. There are many others. Can you think of a honest, good reason that a politician might have to trade stocks? If you can't think of good reason, you're ideology has given you bias against someone (in the same way that it has given you bias for someone else).
There many different ways of life, most people think theirs is the best way.
> The direction to go in is not allowing politicians to hold individual stocks.
I don't think this is the best direction to go in.
> The policy is they can't own individual stocks going forward.
We'll see if the policy shifts in this direction
> And this is a thing we voted on.
Who is we? Not me.
> So I won't rule out everything but in your examples of guns and gold that would also prohibit the politician from selling those things or having to give them up as well.
But if the politicians aren't following current laws, why would they follow new laws? (The law I am referring to is the stock trade disclosure one, but there are others)
> You're taking the stance that everything is effectively the same so why are people singling out stock trading
Agreed
> Whereas I think there are shades of gray.
Agreed, even private citizens have to declare their trades to the SEC once a trade reaches a certain value.
> that isn't in the spotlight as much is because it doesn't happen at the federal level but at the state and local level.
I disagree, shifts in land value happen for many reasons including legislation. Are these shifts in value as volatile as the ones seen in stock market? The answer, IMO, depends on the time frame.
> There are a ton of injustices that still occur.
Agreed, but,
More laws don't stop injustices, they just cause more people to have more interactions with law enforcement agents.
I am not for that.