>

I already know Matt gaetz is on that list
Andy Biggs - Arizona's 5th District
Dan Bishop - North Carolina's 9th District
Lauren Boebert - Colorado's 3rd District
Mo Brooks - Alabama's 5th District
Michael Cloud - Texas' 27th District
Andrew Clyde - Georgia's 9th District
James Comer - Kentucky's 1st District
Rick Crawford - Arkansas' 1st District
Byron Donalds - Florida 19th District
Virginia Foxx - North Carolina's 5th District
Louie Gohmert - Texas' 1st District
Bob Good - Virginia's 5th District
Paul Gosar - Arizona's 4th District
Marjorie Taylor Greene - Georgia's 14th District
Jody Hice - Georgia's 10th District
Clay Higgins - Louisiana's 3rd District
Ronny Jackson - Texas' 13th District
Thomas Massie - Kentucky's 4th District
Tom McClintock - California's 4th District
Barry Moore - Alabama's 2nd District
Troy Nehls - Texas' 22nd District
Ralph Norman - South Carolina's 5th District
Scott Perry - Pennsylvania 10th District
Matt Rosendale - Montana at-large
Chip Roy - Texas' 21st District
John Rutherford - Florida's 4th District
Austin Scott - Georgia's 8th District
Jeff Van Drew - New Jersey's 2nd District >

A whole lot of traitors on that list.  And imagine being Jeff Van Drew, a man who was elected as a Democrat, and not only switched to being a Republican, but is actively voting against a bill enforcing child sex abuse probes.  Despicable. >

I’m curious because this seems like an obvious bill to pass and because a lot of these names pop out as massive far righters. What was there reasoning specifically for voting no? >

A huge portion of right wing profits come from child sex trafficking. >

But like, what was the bullshit reason they pushed in the media? I feel like they would have some glib out some minor statement in the bill that infringes on personal freedoms or too expensive, something like that, but I haven’t heard what their actual reasons were other than just voting no. >

I have the same question. Does anyone know the story here?  Or are we all just reacting to the headline, which in isolation makes it sound crazy that anyone would oppose this. >

Does anyone know what reasons they gave for voting against it? Too much pork? Something else? >

There’s an allocation for an additional $40M/yr through 2028. They may have thought that the bureau should be forced to realign its funding to fix their own black eye from the USA Gymnastics fiasco. 
No statements from their offices though. >

Thank you. And a big ouch with the gymnastics stuff. That was really bad. >

Other question did any of the publication note reaching out to offices for comment? Newsweek did not say. Pursued a couple more and that was absent from them as well. >

No word here either. >

these same people would vote to prohibit drag shows on the basis of protecting children from groomers >

But not kiddie beauty pageants. Or child marriages. >

“But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
I wonder what beautiful document such a statement could come from. 🤔 >

“You’re ignoring context!” Christians probably. >

“Children were adults much younger back then.”
-Christians >

Yeah look at Muhammad's wife.
Abrahamic religions all the same. >

Of course they did. If child sex abuse were more aggressively prosecuted most Republican politicians would be in prison. >

I think it's close to 950 now...can't find the link to the website that tracks that info. >

I don't have to click to know that Gaetz voted against it.
edit: Guess I was wrong about sexual predator Matt Gaetz voting against it. >

shockingly he wasnt one of them but greene,boebert,gohmert,gosar and the rest of teh usual morons were >

Maybe Gaetz wasn't paying attention, just heard "could sex abuse" and decided to vote in favor of it without realizing it was to FIGHT child sex abuse. >

I can imagine after the vote he was like “ah shit I think I fucked up, can we do this over that totally didn’t count” >

just call the 28 the rapist coalition >

Which party is full of groomers again? Oh, I forgot. For the GOP every accusation is a confession. >

Wow Matt Gaetz isn’t in there? Surprised by that… >

Republicans the new American Taliban >

Them and their  talibangelical friends. >

Just a reminder that the GOP Republicans are known to call Democrats baby-eating pedophiles, and now they vote against extra protection for real victims? Someone explain the ethics of this situation to me, please. >

I see dumb and dumber are there. Not shocking at all.
Any list that has your name with those two... is quite an embarrassing one. >

Unless it's a list of people indicted and put in prison. Or an obituary. >

Up to part 39 now.
Direct link to the Google doc. >

All Epstein fans >

Matt Gaetz conspicuously absent. >

The usual suspects with a few “wannabes” added. Why the GOP gets such a high percentage of American votes is a mystery and a topic that needs to be explored. If it was my call, every single one of these clowns would be gone. Zero value to anybody on earth let alone their own constituents. Disgusting bunch!! >

Except for Gaetz, the same ones that voted against awarding medals to the Capitol Police last year voted against this.
They seem to vote together against a lot of bills. 
At least one thing, Newsweek is still good for is listing who voted against the current bill. >

Those that support this crew needs to take a long hard look in the mirror and have a very serious conversation with themselves. This is NOT right at all! >

Boebert trying to throw cover for her registered sex offender husband >

You want a list of those groomers the alt-right is always hunting for in libraries, schools, and theatres?  Start here. >

I honestly want to know how the Qultists square the circle on this one >

the people who voted them in are probably of like mind anyways…. >

So a vote for Republican Party is basically a vote for child sex abuse >

The Republican House: You will never find a more Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy. >

My sense is that the "no" vote was a typically immature way to oppose the majority and oppose the Republican establishment. 
The "no" vote is not about thought, concerns, or legitimate criticism - it is simply about being obnoxious and nothing more. This group exists simply to be dicks. >

Trolls and devil worshippers are about the kindest words I can think of for this group.
I’m too much of a Christian to say anything worse >

All the usual right-wing groomers. >

I’m gobsmacked Gym Jordan isn’t on the list. >

I want the why for the no votes on this. I’m betting it’s over a rider in the bill funding something. Perusing the text now to see if there’s something unrelated attached. 
I really hope this works as planned and we have better interviews and advocates for investigating these cases. After USA Gymnastics with 300+ women and girls coming forward and not having an investigation start something needed to happen. >

The only thing I see in there that they could object to is additional funding of $40M/yr through 2028. Probably thought the Bureau should have to reallocate their current funding to fix this. 
Still no word from any of their offices on reason for no vote. >

Show me that list of Republicans and I'll show you a list of child sex abusers and their supporters. >

No surprise that WT Chip Roy voted against it. >

Fucking skeezes.
​
Would be nice if we knew what's up with the no-votes (not nay, those that didn't vote is what I'm talking about). I know it's usually because they're not there; but not always. >

If they were there and failed to vote they would be listed as an “abstention”, not a no. >

The important thing to know from that list is none of them are actually interested in governance. Only obstruction and bomb throwing. >

What a shocker. The “LGBTQ are groomers” folks don’t want to help actual abuse victims >


The bill, entitled Respect for Child Survivors Act, was led by Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn and co-sponsored by Democrat Delaware Senator Chris Coons, Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Democrat Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar.

I don't think this was a vote on child sex abuse. I think it was a vote on bipartisanship. >

All members of the Sedition Caucus