GOP Kremlin Caucus strikes again

[poweRob]

Protecting Putin at all costs. Disgusting traitors.

​

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Protecting Putin at all costs. Disgusting traitors.

​

Damn. Just Damn.

 

[Demon]

Only 6? I'm surprised it wasn't a lot more. No Boebert?

 

[Geoist]

True deplorables.

 

[poweRob]

True deplorables.

All backed by many in here.

 

[independentusa]

Protecting Putin at all costs. Disgusting traitors.

​

I wrote an OP stating I thought that the Russian soldiers not only committed war crimes, but they are acting worse than animals. I think that these crimes against humanity in Ukraine kind of proof my point.

 

[Schism]

I haven't read the bill, but usually its rejected because of some rider, tick, or flea that's attached itself and embedded deep within it.

If Democrats would be honest about their legislation, it would have a greater chance of garnering votes.

#NoToPork

 

[CaughtInThe]

Wow

 

[poweRob]

I haven't read the bill, but usually its rejected because of some rider, tick, or flea that's attached itself and embedded deep within it.

Since you aren't specifying what it is, it is clear you didn't read shit and are just making stuff up.

If Democrats would be honest about their legislation, it would have a greater chance of garnering votes.

#NoToPork

What pork? You lie.

 

[Schism]

Since you aren't specifying what it is, it is clear you didn't read shit and are just making stuff up.

What pork? You lie.

Apparently you can't read.

 

[Chillfolks]

Since you aren't specifying what it is, it is clear you didn't read shit and are just making stuff up.

What pork? You lie.

You accuse him of lying about not reading the bill then turn around and say it’s obvious he has t read it. A statement you have declared a lie. It doesn’t make any sense to accuse someone of lying then say yeah it’s obvious you didn’t read it like you claimed not to have.


I also have not read it and before you accuse me of lying about not reading it then saying it’s obvious I didn’t read it I’ll repeat myself I have not read the bill.

 

[poweRob]

Apparently you can't read.

Go back and read my edits that you are ignoring.

 

[poweRob]

You accuse him of lying about not reading the bill then turn around and say it’s obvious he has t read it. A statement you have declared a lie. It doesn’t make any sense to accuse someone of lying then say yeah it’s obvious you didn’t read it like you claimed not to have.


I also have not read it and before you accuse me of lying about not reading it then saying it’s obvious I didn’t read it I’ll repeat myself I have not read the bill.

I edited before you made your post here.

 

[less right]

I haven't read the bill, but usually its rejected because of some rider, tick, or flea that's attached itself and embedded deep within it.

If Democrats would be honest about their legislation, it would have a greater chance of garnering votes.

#NoToPork

Yeah, because democratic legislation is so often introduced by republican legislators.

This is actually some pretty clean, straight forward legislation about information gathering. But then it wasn't introduced by a democrat.

 

[Chillfolks]

Does anyone have a source for this? So far I found a left wing bias site reporting the tweet but can’t find any actual bill referenced to loom at or find and comments from those who allegedly voted the way they did.

 

[Schism]

Go back and read my edits that you are ignoring.

I'm not ignoring your edits, PoweRob, I'm ignoring you.

 

[Lisa]

Only 6? I'm surprised it wasn't a lot more. No Boebert?

Or Jim Jordan?

 

[Outlook]

Protecting Putin at all costs. Disgusting traitors.

​

Could their vote have anything to do with United States relationship to the ICC?

 

[bullseyelqcs]

You accuse him of lying about not reading the bill then turn around and say it’s obvious he has t read it. A statement you have declared a lie. It doesn’t make any sense to accuse someone of lying then say yeah it’s obvious you didn’t read it like you claimed not to have.


I also have not read it and before you accuse me of lying about not reading it then saying it’s obvious I didn’t read it I’ll repeat myself I have not read the bill.

You also aren't claiming that the reason it didn't pass was some poison pill. Without reading it, it would impossible to make that claim, wouldn't it? I think that was what was being referenced.

 

[Utility Man]

I haven't read the bill.....

If Democrats would be honest......

#NoToPork

No one ever accused you all of being smart.

Roll Call 121 Roll Call 121, Bill Number: H. R. 7276, 117th Congress, 2nd Session

VOTE QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, DESCRIPTION: Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act, VOTE TYPE: 2/3 Yea-And-Nay, STATUS: Passed

clerk.house.gov

Amendments - H.R.7276 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act

Amendments to H.R.7276 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act

www.congress.gov

 

[Chillfolks]

You also aren't claiming that the reason it didn't pass was some poison pill. Without reading it, it would impossible to make that claim, wouldn't it? I think that was what was being referenced.

I don’t know why someone voted against it, I haven’t seen any reasoning.
I think claiming the no vote has something to do with Russian sympathy or Putin protection is as plausible and as completely made up as saying it was for a poison pill when no one knows the reasoning.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

I don’t know why someone voted against it, I haven’t seen any reasoning.
I think claiming the no vote has something to do with Russian sympathy or Putin protection is as plausible and as completely made up as saying it was for a poison pill when no one knows the reasoning.

Would be if we didn't have record of those same people actually saying things that were very much pro-Putin and complaining about us doing basically anything to him. It makes that particular take a hell of a lot more plausible than the other, doesn't it?

 

[Chillfolks]

Would be if we didn't have record of those same people actually saying things that were very much pro-Putin and complaining about us doing basically anything to him. It makes that particular take a hell of a lot more plausible than the other, doesn't it?

It would if we did not have a long history of political parties placing poison pill inserts into what should be an easily passed issue.

I freely admit I do not know why. It could be some Red love, it could be a poison pill, it could be just because that party says yes I’ll say no, it could be some vague language they feel may be interpreted as authorization of troops, the list of could be can go on and on.

Speculating why may be fun and kill a little time but we are all just using our SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) at this point.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

It would if we did not have a long history of political parties placing poison pill inserts into what should be an easily passed issue.

I freely admit I do not know why. It could be some Red love, it could be a poison pill, it could be just because that party says yes I’ll say no, it could be some vague language they feel may be interpreted as authorization of troops, the list of could be can go on and on.

Speculating why may be fun and kill a little time but we are all just using our SWAG (scientific wild ass guess) at this point.

Well, the text of the bill has been posted, and I didn't see anything outlandish, so it begs the original point to me.

That said, I can accept your last statement as well.

 

[SCrider]

Only 6? I'm surprised it wasn't a lot more. No Boebert?

I expected to see her on there as well. Maybe she was not there for the vote.
Correction she seems to have done the right thing on this one.