Congressman Matt Gaetz Introduces -The PENCIL Resolution- in the U.S. House

a reply to: xuenchen

Do you think enough Republicans will vote for it to pass?

Does the Senate have to vote on it too before it comes into effect?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: nugget1

I will let out an audible cheer, when you one day say you're pleasantly surprised by what the GOP Congress did.

I look forward to it, Care! I would not mind a little egg on my face at all in that case.

I propose an additional ammendment to that...

Any elected official to any level office of any fed or state government convicted of any kind of corruption will receive life in prison. And any act of Treason will be given the death penalty...

All trials to be held outside on the US Capital Steps....

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: frogs453
Expect that one to go the way of MTG's today. 14 Yays 418 Nays. Gaetz,MTG,Boebert are all not serious about issues, but drama.

Only because leftists have no integrity.

You must have missed the fact that the 418 nays included 205 Republicans.

What Bill was voted on ? 😎

MJT's bill to prohibit sales from the US petroleum reserve to China.

Looks like the vote was for an Amendment for H.R. 21😎

There was a few dozen Amendment votes for the same Bill 😎

H R 21 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jan-2023 5:42 PM
AUTHOR(S): Greene of Georgia Amendment No. 2
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Amendment

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: watchitburn
You must have missed the fact that the 418 nays included 205 Republicans.

You mnust have missed the fact that most Republicans are RINOs...

originally posted by: frogs453
Expect that one to go the way of MTG's today. 14 Yays 418 Nays. Gaetz,MTG,Boebert are all not serious about issues, but drama.

So, you don't think that stopping the sale of our oil to China is a serious issue?

Why am I not surprised (again)...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: frogs453
Expect that one to go the way of MTG's today. 14 Yays 418 Nays. Gaetz,MTG,Boebert are all not serious about issues, but drama.

So, you don't think that stopping the sale of our oil to China is a serious issue?

Why am I not surprised (again)...

Well, why was this not introduced in 2017, when the previous President sold 550,000 barrels to China? Now it's a problem? Why am I not surprised again?

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: frogs453
Expect that one to go the way of MTG's today. 14 Yays 418 Nays. Gaetz,MTG,Boebert are all not serious about issues, but drama.

So, you don't think that stopping the sale of our oil to China is a serious issue?

Why am I not surprised (again)...

Well, why was this not introduced in 2017, when the previous President sold 550,000 barrels to China? Now it's a problem? Why am I not surprised again?

That was a whole different situation !!! 😁

Unless somebody can show all the similarities😁

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: frogs453
Expect that one to go the way of MTG's today. 14 Yays 418 Nays. Gaetz,MTG,Boebert are all not serious about issues, but drama.

So, you don't think that stopping the sale of our oil to China is a serious issue?

Why am I not surprised (again)...

Well, why was this not introduced in 2017, when the previous President sold 550,000 barrels to China? Now it's a problem? Why am I not surprised again?

That was a whole different situation !!! 😁

Unless somebody can show all the similarities😁

You're making the claim that it's different. So how about you show how it was different? According to this, they both followed the same legal procedure.

Axios

a reply to: frogs453

Different because no one is showing the similarities enough to make it the same.

You didn't quote your arguments from your article 😁

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: tanstaafl
Well, why was this not introduced in 2017, when the previous President sold 550,000 barrels to China?

Did Trump do it, or did his Administration do it in accordance with the current law?

Was there rampant inflation and massive energy shortages due to his Administration killing/destroying our own internal energy production capabilities, or was his Administration unleashing our potential for energy independence?

Did we become energy independent under Trumps Administration?

Now it's a problem? Why am I not surprised again?

You're not surprised because you're incapable of understanding that context matters.

His Administration - no fanfare, no loud boastful pronouncements from Trump - selling 550,000 barrels, one time as required by law, is very very different from selling 1,000,000 barrels per day for six months .

See any difference there?