SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reuters, BBC report on the resignation of Rep congressman Chris Collins before the enquiry into insiders trading
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chris Collins, a Republican U.S. congressman from New York state, resigned on Monday ahead of his expected guilty plea in a criminal insider trading case.
A senior Democratic aide speaking on condition of anonymity said Monday that the office of U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi had received Collins' letter of resignation, and that it would become effective Tuesday.
Collins, 69, is scheduled to appear in Manhattan federal that day to enter his guilty plea, court records show. Collins' son, Cameron Collins, and another man, Stephen Zarsky, are also scheduled to plead guilty in the case on Thursday.
Chris Collins, an early supporter of President Donald Trump, represents New York's 27th Congressional District, which includes areas surrounding Buffalo and Rochester. He won reelection last November, three months after he was criminally charged.
He was arrested by the FBI last August after prosecutors alleged that he alerted his son to a failed drug trial, allowing him to divest and avoid more than $500,000 (£406,000) in losses.
Prosecutors allege that he called his son in June 2017 after receiving an email during the congressional picnic at the White House, informing him of the failed drug trial results involving Innate Immunotherapeutics, a company in which his son owned thousands of shares.
Mr Collins immediately told the trial failure news to his son, who in turn told his fiance, Lauren Zarsky, and her parents, Dorothy and Stephen Zarsky, prosecutors allege.
...
Prosecutors said the congressman was "virtually precluded" from trading, in part because he already faced a congressional ethics probe over Innate.However, prosecutors said others used the insider information to avoid more than $768,000 in losses when Innate's share price plunged 92 per cent after news of the drug's failure became public.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 01 2019, @10:58PM (40 children)
Maybe not where you live :-)
But it is in the U.S. It is fake news that says they don't.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:34PM (39 children)
Where I live we vote them out on a regular basis.
It is American where that is not possible. If it were possible it would have happened.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:56PM (38 children)
The only reason it doesn't happen is because less than 5% want it to happen. The choice is there for them to make.
Please, the blame passing must stop.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:25AM (29 children)
No, the reason it doesn't happen is because the people who run your country don't want it to happen.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:36AM (28 children)
Ok you win. Not going through this again. I'll just have to let you chase your tail.
You still haven't explained the compelling external force behind your theory. The psychological issues are well understood and documented, and all that is still on the voters to remedy it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:59AM
It's been explained to you over and over. Yet you refuse to consider facts and evidence in your ridiculous blather.
I can only assume that you're either shilling/stirring up shit with an agenda or have significant brain damage.
The result is the same, however.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:01AM
How does that old saw go, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Likewise, you can lead a fool to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
You're in there, and not as the horse.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:15AM (25 children)
Why would you think it is an external force? As far as I can tell from this distance it is entirely built in to your weird system.
Why do you need primaries for example, and why are so many of them closed?
If someone wants to stand for office, why do they have to go through that?
Where I live, if I want to run for office, I send a form to the electoral office, and they put me on the ballot. You can't do that without the permission of a Democrat or a Republican.
It shouldn't be too hard to provide a link then.
Not in America it is not. If it was, they would have done it a long time ago.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:31AM (19 children)
Why do you need primaries for example
Primaries are fine, in theory to sort out the best. Peoples' choice make it something else entirely. They do not have to accept closed primaries. They can register as independents and vote as such. It would help if they demanded simple voter registration without any party restrictions. Nobody is required to vote in the party primaries. Let them run the candidates they choose and they can be on the ballot in the general. The more people registering as independents will make it easier for such candidates to get on the ballot. The entire thing is voter driven. Exactly as it should be.
The system we have emerges from voter apathy (and antipathy), again, no conspiracy required. The degradation is very natural.
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. And an American should take it as an insult. You're saying they can't deal, that they are incapable of running their political system. I'm just saying they won't. And instead of taking responsibility for it and rising up, they whine like little babies. Whether they can or not, it is still on the voters. Once again, what else is there?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:52AM (18 children)
Why should they have to register as anything? That is none of the government's business, and in proper democracies is not something that is needed.
Try and get on a ballot in Wisconsin (for example). You have to be from a recognised party (why? who cares?) and get a thousand signatures. Once again,. why? Surely getting votes is for the election?
Unless maybe it is to prevent non-Republicans or Democrats from standing? Maybe.
But still no link explaining it? OK.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:23AM (17 children)
Why should they have to register as anything?
Didn't see where I mentioned that, huh? Nothing you mention up there can possibly happen without the demand from the voters. Americans are accustomed to the system they have, they are comfortable enough with it to not want to rock the boat for the irrational fear of losing their little personal fiefdoms. The power is on, the TV works, and dinner's on the table... What is not obvious about this that needs useless paragraph after paragraph over and over?
I asked a simple question, who is going to fix it? Does anybody have an answer?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:43PM
The point I made is that the voters have no control over the US system, by design. The requirement to get 1,000 signatures on a nomination from and to have to register your voting preference are just a couple of examples of how that control is kept from them.
That is true. You also have the most effective propaganda system humanity has ever devised.
Who is going to fix it? Your system is not broken, it works very well.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:56PM (15 children)
I just read this piece. [slate.com]
Tell me again how the voters control your system?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:19PM (9 children)
Heh, it's right there in the article.
That was a gimme...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:56PM (8 children)
A gimme? You've lost sight of what we're debating.
Can voters influence this? No.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:12PM (4 children)
But of course they do. Just because they play along for convenience (and because of animal psychology) doesn't make a bit of difference. They choose the path of least resistance. This is fundamental and perfectly natural. The statistics document and quantify instinctive behavior. It describes determinism. You saying there's no way out?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:23PM (3 children)
No, there's obviously any number of ways the US could have a better, more inclusive electoral system.
Every other democracy in the world has done it, so there are lots of ways to do it.
The people who rule your country have no interest in having that happen however. The link I posted about gerrymandering points out one of the ways they achieve control and keep it. Needing 1,000 signatures to even appear on the ballot is another way.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:35PM (2 children)
The people who rule your country have no interest in having that happen however.
I lost count on how many times I asked the question: Then who will, and how?
The voters rule the country. This is the way they do it, by being submissive (and passive aggressive) to the alpha. Do they have the choice not to be?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:12PM (1 child)
No they don't.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:35PM
You still haven't explained how. You simply deny the choices they have. Let's give a rest, shall we?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:07PM (2 children)
Sorry, but in case you're interested:
Can voters influence this? No.
Can voters influence this? Yes! [freep.com]
Here you see why the government hates Facebook so much...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:21PM (1 child)
Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read and an interesting way of trying to deal with the problem of gerrymandering.
However:
Oh. Goodness. That must another example of this "bipartisanship" I keep hearing about.
That is a very good question Mr. Gallagher. A very good question.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:37PM
They just have to sort it out themselves. I don't expect a shooting war...
It still shows the system is a reflection of the voters
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:27PM (4 children)
And I do believe voters are reacting to this and are working to change it. So there is always hope. I am more optimistic than it appears. We may be able reduce incumbency without needing any silly laws like term limits. The voters always prevail. They are in absolute control.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:07PM (3 children)
No they're not. The voters are almost irrelevant.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:16PM (2 children)
Then why are billions spent to influence them? You're saying they are sheep. Are they really?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
I am not saying they're sheep, but the billions are spent largely to convince them that they have the best of all possible systems, and that has worked really well. As your arguments illustrate nicely.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:39PM
To be convinced is not a free choice?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:09AM (2 children)
It shouldn't be too hard to provide a link then.
Personal fave [archive.org]. Though I don't know why fundamentals and the self evident need explaining, aside from learning language, I guess.. Not having the words for the things you know is a hindrance.
And here, you have the best Freud [youtube.com]! What's not to understand? The campaign is on. The take away quote: "They happen to be very nice people" A variation on a theme...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:17AM (1 child)
Oh good lord.
I was expecting something that actually related to the US electoral system. Disappointed again...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:26AM
You wanted to know what drives it. There it is. It would be silly to single out Americans. People are ruled because they want to be.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @03:30AM (1 child)
Since fustakrakich is somewhat clueless I'm going to try answering at least some of your questions. First, while many states have closed primaries there are some where primaries are open. Not sure which ones but I distinctly remember from my grade school civics class that this is true.
My understanding is that this is simply not true. All that is necessary is that you have to fill out some forms and get signatures of a certain number of registered voters to get on the ballot. In fact, there are some (typically) local elections that are non-partisan. In fact, in my city we are having such a non-partisan election coming up next month. Furthermore, you don't have to be registered as either Democrat or Republican to run for President; in the 2016 election I think there were roughly half a dozen candidates on the ballot in my state for President. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the winner would inevitably be a Democrat or a Republican but that is more down to voter resistance to change than to any rules barring a third party candidate from winning the election. I hope that clears things up for you.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:43PM
Have a quick look at this link Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Wisconsin [ballotpedia.org]
It states that to even become a candidate, the applicant must get 1,000 sigantures on the nominating form.
Why would that be necessary? Getting 1,000 votes or more is surely what the election is for isn't it?
Which of the independent candidates is going to be able to jump that hurdle? Not many is the answer.
That is entirely my point. All elections should be "non-partisan" and in democracies they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:00AM (7 children)
It is widely believed that a vote for none of the two major parties is a wasted vote.
And this does seem to be true.
So people choose whichever of the major two parties is closer to their desires.
And the third parties are frozen out of the process.
The cure is a preferential ballot with instant runoff.
Then you can vote for your favorite other candidate knowing your vote won't be wasted.
You simply place that major party you otherwise feel compelled to vote for as second or third choice.
Result: People feel free to vote for the party of their choice as first choice,
knowing their second choice is there as a backstop.
The third party then has a fairer chance of getting enough votes to get in.
-- hendrik
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:11AM (6 children)
To me the vote for the Party is the wasted vote... whatever, I didn't come to argue that, but how do you get preferential ballot with instant runoff unless there is a demand from the voters?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:58AM (5 children)
Except there *is* demand for that. Perhaps not where you live, in which case it's *your* fault that it isn't being discussed/put on the ballot there.
You just need to get it on the ballot in an election and have the voters decide that they want it. Just as New York City [politico.com] is doing this November.
In fact, it's already been approved and is in place in a bunch of places [wikipedia.org] in the United States.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:56PM (4 children)
Well good, people are doing something. Because all I hear around here is a bunch of complaining from the losers about rigged systems, foreign influence, and how nobody can do anything about it because, money... So if voters can defeat the money, where's the problem? I've said all along that the voters are in control. The system works, and we can with the mere desire vote the incumbents out without any concern about Russian ad buys on Facebook.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:18PM (1 child)
Yes, it is possible for voters to "defeat the money" but, honestly, wouldn't you rather live in a democracy in which a few high-rolling donors won't be able to buy the election? Even if they don't succeed the mere attempt is odious enough on it's own.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:27PM
Even if they don't succeed the mere attempt is odious enough on it's own.
Yes it is. And only the voters can control that too through their response at election time. The attempt only happens because it is so extremely successful. Without the attention it will wither and die.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:39PM (1 child)
Except Advertising/marketing *works*. Not necessarily every ad or marketing plan, but in the aggregate, yes it does.
And that goes for political candidates just as much as it does toothpaste or laundry detergent.
You are right that the voters decide. But don't reject the power of money for *effective* advertising/marketing to make a difference in the aisles of a supermarket or in the voting booth (see below for a brief discussion of this).
But voters, while they generally hate folks in Congress, they like their *own* congressperson much more [fivethirtyeight.com].
How is that possible? If you think Congress is doing a horrible job (and most folks do), why doesn't that extend to *their own congressperson*? It seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it? But that's how human brains work -- if you're familiar with someone (or at least their name) and they are considered to be "part of the group" (i.e., your party and/or a local boy/girl), you will have a higher opinion of them than others who aren't "part of the group."
Advertising exploits this. And whether you want to accept it or not, it works. Which explains (in part) why incumbency rates are so high, while general approval ratings are so low.
The more money you have to spend on advertising, the more you can exploit this. Since incumbents have significantly more access to lobbyists, special interests and big money donors, *and* they have name recognition (are known better to their voters, see "top-of-mind awareness" below), they are usually able to get re-elected.
Leveling the money playing field (both in terms of lobbyists/big money contributors and money spent on campaigns) can move us toward reducing that incumbent advantage.
There are lots of other factors involved, and ranked-choice-voting, among other things can help, but the elephant (no pun intended) in the room is the money.
Which is why If you actually "vote the scoundrels out," the need for more and more money to win re-election will create *new* scoundrels. It's the money that *often* (note, I did not say always) corrupts. Often, really idealistic people are corrupted before they even realize it, because they want to deliver for their constituents -- but they can't do that unless they're in office -- so they take the money and are now beholden.
I don't have all the answers, or even know all the right questions to ask.
However, the idea that advertising/marketing is irrelevant, and all we need to do is *vote the bums out* to address the issues we have with Congress, state and local governments (where corruption is even more prevalent and flagrant, as it's much cheaper to buy a city council person or state senator than a member of Congress) is to just "vote them out" isn't viable when the political system forces candidates and elected representatives to focus on the money almost all the time.
Unfortunately for us, the solutions aren't as simple as you would like them to be. I wish they were. We need better, and more responsive, governance.
Advertising/Marketing:
I despise advertising, despite (or perhaps, because of) the fact that it (well, Advertising Research [wikipedia.org]) housed, fed and clothed me for the first 18 years of my life. And then for another five years when I worked in that industry as well.
The tools and techniques employed are sophisticated and time-tested. And these tools/techniques do (not with everyone and not all the time) work.
Top-of-mind Awareness:
An important feature of this is what's known as Top-of-mind Awareness [wikipedia.org]. If you can get a consumer to think of your brand (or candidate -- the same thing in this context) *first* when contemplating a purchase of (or vote for) a particular product, you've won more than half the battle.
I'll give you an example: Without clicking on the link, do you know who Lenora Fulani might be? No? She ran for President in 1988 and 1992. In fact, she received >250,000 votes in 1988. I'm betting you can name the Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates in those election years. Why not Fulani?
Because her name wasn't forced in everyone's faces all the time as G.H.W. Bush, Scooby Dukakis and Bill Clinton's were. That's top-of-mind awareness. And it makes a *measurable* difference. And *money* spent on advertising/marketing creates it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:01PM
I'm aware of all that. Pstch101. Pavlov and Skinner... And some Freud for the irrational element.
So then we need to teach resistance to those appeals to animal instincts in the schools, instead of using them to reinforce conformity. The adults are on their own. They need a neuralizer.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..