General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is Bernie Sanders voting to NOT put sanctions on Russia?
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00175I have my own feelings, of course and I have mentioned them here.
I cant anymore, I will be accused of bashing a Democrat, even though he isnt.
Why do YOU think he is seemingly so friendly to Putin?
drray23
(7,616 posts)Motley13
(3,867 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)with Democrats in the Senate majority. That plunged us deeply into the Vietnam war under LBJ. Give credit to Senators Wayne Morse (D-OR) and Ernest Gruening (D-AK).
Then there is Barbara Lee. Lee gained national attention in 2001 as the only member of congress to vote "No" on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), stating that she voted no not because she opposed military action but because she believed the AUMF, as written, granted overly-broad powers to wage war to the president at a time when the facts regarding the situation were not yet clear. She "warned her colleagues to be 'careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target.
All of the above were proved right. Hopefully Bernie won't be proved right this time, but Trump is doing what he can to poison the well with Iran prepping for another war.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I remember at the time his detractors also used that to question his loyalty to America.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Levin, Byrd, all those fighting against Iraq war were rather heroes here.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)No one here would have dreamed of questioning his loyalty to his country because of that vote.
I'm referring to Vermonters who usually called him a commie and then switched gears to label him a terrorist sympathizer. Much like they questioned Obamas loyalty and called him a Muslim. There aren't a lot of bigoted right wing dirt bags in Vermont but the ones who do live there are loud.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,121 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Some people seem to have a hard time retaining information, almost as if they are more interested in repeating questions about Senator Sanders than in receiving actual answers. Below, in this very discussion, you can find this posted:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry says it would be dangerous to impose new sanctions on Iran so soon after the negotiation of an international nuclear deal:
Speaking at a San Francisco fundraiser, Kerry argued that new sanctions could be seen as a provocation by Iran.
If we become super provocative in ways that show the Iranian people there has been no advantage to this, that there is no gain, and our bellicosity is pushing them into a corner, thats dangerous and that could bring a very different result, said Kerry, who led U.S. negotiations on the deal under former President Obama.
Of course what would John Kerry know about the relationship of imposing new sanctions now on Iran and the nuclear deal. He's only the guy who spent over a year negotiating directly with the Iranians to secure "the nuclear deal" in the first place.
There are hardliners in Iran, just like there are here, who would like nothing better than to see this deal scuttled. Just this week Trump predicted that he would not re-certify Iranian compliance with the deal the next time it is reviewed in 90 days. Trump says they Iran is not in compliance "with the spirit" of the deal. Trump is looking for excuses for the U.S. to break the deal. That would be a godsend to Iran for the U.S. to be the one to back out first, since the rest of the world would not need to reimpose the original sanctions on Iran if the U.S. is the one breaking the deal.
Trump is so easily played that if hardliners in Iran use the fact that the U.S. just imposed new sanctions on Iran as a pretense for doing something upsetting to U.S. foreign policy in retaliation (something that technically does not violate the treaty) Trump can easily be prodded into keeping his threat of U.S. withdrawal in response to Iranian "provocations". That is where a further escalation of tensions with Iran is all too likely to lead. We provoke them with "provocations" like new sanctions. Iranian hardliners in the Revolutionary Guard "provoke" Trump by "detaining" some American or "harassing" some ship in return. Trump responds by not recertifying Iranian compliance in the nuclear deal, and hardliners on both sides get what they want. A rush toward a new war.
It may not happen but the risk is very real.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)undo the 2015 nuclear deal?
You've got a 2015 nuclear deal. These sanctions target individuals who proliferate the ballistic missile program, people who fund terrorism, and people who deal in the arms trade. And yes, American arms manufacturers would be affected.
Now, could it piss off the Iranians? Sure. But if these new sanctions cause Iran to scrap a hard-fought for nuclear deal, it seems that the nuclear deal wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Kerry is right to express concern.
Frankly, I trust Warren and Franken on foreign policy more than Bernie on this issue. The reason for that is because of Bernie's relationship with arms manufacturers:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-loves-this-dollar1-trillion-war-machine
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)To what extent is a matter of debate, as is the purpose of threads such as this.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Props for explaining it so simply that a kid can understand and also for recognizing the gaslighting that's occurring here. The burden of proof that Bernie is a Russian sympathizer is on those making the claim, since they can't prove it they're trying to deflect by using logical fallacies.
PufPuf23
(8,755 posts)Which way to the gaslight forum or are we already there?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)PufPuf23
(8,755 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This is why it's not worth getting too upset about disinformation on the internet, its better to just chuckle and counter it with facts - intelligent folks will see though it.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)Am I wrong for being surprised?? First I've heard of it....
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)But many of the same select group of names have felt a need to write extensive commentary about Bernie's "surprising" stance on almost every one of the repeated OP's that have been started about this topic - each time expressing alarm anew. We all miss topics on DU sometimes. And we also all see when some people refuse to let go of a topic that seems to further their agenda.
Enough said about that - no doubt you will get most of your questions answered somewhere in this discussion.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Best performance since Scaramucci's last press conference, I think there should be some sort of internet award for acting.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)As you wrote:
"Some people seem to have a hard time retaining information,
almost as if they are more interested in repeating questions about Senator Sanders
than in receiving actual answers."
Bernie said he voted against the sanctions because he feared it would derail the deal with Iran.
But some would turn that into
"Bernie supports Russia!"
Demsrule86
(68,456 posts)I fail to understand bringing up the past...and always against the Democrats.
"The resolution was quickly approved by Congress; only Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska voted against it. Later, when more information about the Tonkin incident became available, many concluded that Johnson and his advisers had misled Congress into supporting the expansion of the war."
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/gulf-of-tonkin-resolution
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)including Franken and Warren, Udall, and Wyden, okay.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Every Republican in the Senate is right?
Nothing like making voting for a bill supported by 98% of Republicans into a litmus test for whether you're a good Democrat.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)IF
This were in any meaningful way a rebuke to Putin OR Trump not one Republican would have voted for it.
I trust that all it has accomplished in the end is give Trump and Putin a stage for the puppet show that we are seeing now with the expulsion of diplomats - CAREER diplomats that Trump AND Putin both hate, while Putin and Trump continue to work hand in hand to undermine this country.
Oh, and
I'M NOT ON HERE TRYING TO USE A MEANINGLESS VOTE AS YET ANOTHER PURITY TEST FOR SENATOR SANDERS, so I can both respect the political acumen demonstrated by our Democratic legislators AND Bernie's principled stand against Iran sanctions.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)It ain't all about Bernie.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)To me by mistake. Surely this is about the OP.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)to authority is considerably closer than mine.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Speaking at a San Francisco fundraiser, Kerry argued that new sanctions could be seen as a provocation by Iran.
If we become super provocative in ways that show the Iranian people there has been no advantage to this, that there is no gain, and our bellicosity is pushing them into a corner, thats dangerous and that could bring a very different result, said Kerry, who led U.S. negotiations on the deal under former President Obama.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336494-kerry-new-iran-sanctions-may-be-dangerous
drray23
(7,616 posts)what just passed are sanctions on russia, not iran.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)That is the Senator's reasoning, still waiting for it.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)about John Kerry.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)onetexan
(13,020 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)russia, iran, and north korea
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)He's done it before, too. Voting the same way as Rand Paul? Probably the reasons are different, but I wish he'd explain them.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)He has
SamKnause
(13,088 posts)He has explained it numerous times.
The Republicans want to put more sanctions on Iran.
The want to blow up the deal that President Obama made with Iran so they can start a war.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)But it would not have 'stirred the pot'.
leftstreet
(36,098 posts)Sanders Statement on Iran and Russia Sanctions
Thursday, June 15, 2017
WASHINGTON, June 15 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:
"I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions
oberliner
(58,724 posts)leftstreet
(36,098 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Though this bill had North Korea added into the mix, so it was not exactly the same as the other bill.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)Deal?
One or the other, which is it?
Logic dictates BULLSHIT.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Iran deal. Note that John Kerry himself, the man who has spent more hours actually speaking to the Iranian foreign minister than any other American, personally spoke (tweeted) out that doing this would further inflame the situation.
Why so many Democrats?? AIPAC lobbied for this and very few Democrats have the courage to cast a vote - that will not change the result - that will get AIPAC's forces against them. I suspect that there are likely as many as those who supported the Iran deal in 2015. Remember that neither Schumer, the minority leader or Cardin, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations committee did. They are BOTH very powerful voices on this issue -- and even when Obama was President they went against their own President.
Getting the Iran deal done was an act of political courage for President Obama and a testimony to John Kerry's williness to personally take on something extremely difficult, where he used every ounce of diplomatic skill and political skill in keeping the Congress from killing it. It is working. It's sole goal was to prevent Iran from moving to become a nuclear power. It created an amazing monitoring system, thanks to the awesome Secretary Moniz and his peer. It purposely did not include any other goal - such as changing Iran's government, ending support of terrorists, or anything else. All p5 plus 1 nations were clear on this and all noted that even that goal was not an easy goal.
Having extensively read about this issue as the negotiations went on and afterward, my conclusion is that many western and especially Israeli opponents to the deal failed because they were dishonest about why they were against it. They argued it made a bomb or a war more likely -- both unbelievable with even a minimal amount of thought. Not to mention, there was the 2012 BiBi appearance at the UN with his strange poster of a bomb and his claim that Iran was 2 months or so away from getting one. There is no question that the nuclear deal closes that path for a decade and then continues to make it less likely because many parts of it last far longer. In 2015, there was a VERY high chance that a military solution would have been attempted had no deal have been reached. This was a catastrophic war avoided - and that is why the military people in Trump's NS council were the ones against him decertifying.
I remember Wendy Sherman speaking of the meeting after the announcement of the deal of all the foreign ministers involved in reaching it. All the ministers said in a few sentences what the deal meant to them. Kerry was last, and Sherman spoke of how his response of having gone to war as a young man had left him with the goal that if he ever reached a position of power, he wanted to be part of avoiding a war. She noted that he actually chocked up as he spoke of this.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry both put avoiding an imminent war ahead of any political gain or any applause - both KNEW the forces against this - from the United States. Any observation of politicians, shows just how rare that is.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Lots of politicians take pot shots at Iran, including Schumer, for fund raising and to protect their right flank.
In this case Sanders, who I didn't support for President, is right.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A bill is put up for a vote. Members of Congress can vote Yes or No, but they can't vote "Yes on section 1 and No on section 2."
The Senators who vote for a bill might like all of it, or they might decide that the good to be done by the parts they like outweighs the harm to be done by the parts they dislike. Congress runs on compromises and dealmaking, so this kind of thing happens a lot.
In this specific instance, they might have thought that bill wouldn't greatly endanger the Iran deal, or that the goal of sanctioning Russia was so important that it justified endangering the Iran deal, or even that blowing up the Iran deal would be a good thing. Before being justified in calling "BULLSHIT", you'd have to research each individual Senator to find out what his or her reasoning was.
Incidentally, there are only 46 Democratic Senators, plus two independents (King and Sanders) who caucus with them.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)"Hello mother, Hello father, here I am at Camp Granada..."
Whining is BS, imo.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)And they say we'll have some fun if it stops raining!
George II
(67,782 posts).....every 90 days.
The last time they re-certified it was ten days ago (July 17 or 18), the final Senate vote on the sanctions came AFTER that happened.
Obviously the 46 Democratic and the other Independent Senator didn't think the Iran deal would be jeopardized.
Using the Iran deal as an excuse is questionable.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)The fact is that the US hardliners and the Iran hardliners are both playing game. Both do not want this deal to continue.
On the US side, there are those who use a different calculus than President Obama and Secretary Kerry. Before the deal, they favored an ever increasing leavl of sanctions on Iran. The intent was not just to keep them from developing a nuclear weapon, which it really was not preventing if you look at BiBi's charts of where they were on that process. The goal was to keep them forever a pariah nation and to cripple their economy.
That is why now, when the deal has really rolled back any Iranian effort to build a bomb and has installed the strongest monitoring process ever used, why are they still out there? The reason is geopolitical. Iran has the possibility of becoming the strongest economy in the middle east. Iran has done many things that are not good, but are they really worse than Saudi Arabia?
Demsrule86
(68,456 posts)And Iran give a great deal of money to Hezbollah.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)and I will never trust anything they put forward in regard to any foreign policy or any matters of importance.
Voltaire2
(12,958 posts)But you knew that.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Every single Democrat supports them.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)But AIPAC is a powerful lobby and most Dems will not oppose them in anything.
AIPAC was opposed to the Iran deal.
Yet the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate supported it, along with the majority of Democrats in both houses.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)It's about politics and optics. His vote posed no significance to anyone outside of his base. Safe way to keep the appearance of being an outsider without damaging his establishment relationships/ties.
It was a good move for him politically.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)To align himself with President Obama and his landmark Iran nuclear deal.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)The time to align himself with Obama was over the last decade, which he overall did well at. Why wouldn't Sanders do well at that, Obama was a great President. All of the Democratic senators and house members voting for it didn't just distance themselves from Obama, as your hypothesis suggests.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Voted to distance themselves from Obama. It's not believable.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)believe that in the aftermath of Trussiagate, risking the viability of Presidentan Obama's Iran nuclear deal, a deal which many Democrat constituencies opposed in the first place, was better than looking like they were weak on obvious Russian interference?
I have to tell you, while I consider the Iran nuclear deal one of Obama's greatest accomplishments, I would still think twice before risking my political future by voting against this bill.
AND if I were a Democratic legislator staying in office wouldn't just be important to me. It would be important to the country. The big picture counts.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)and yes, I trust him far far more than all the current Democrats led by Schumer and Cardin on this. Both Schumer and Cardin are very good on most issues, but they led the effort AGAINST the Iran deal in 2015.
I am proud of my Senator Bernie Sanders and Congressman Welch for not being swept up into this.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I say that as someone with a great amount of respect for Kerry. He has always been a bit reserved. I'm more a Leahy kinda of guy. I don't think Sanders vote here was in our best interests. I also don't see it as significant.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Other than in the US, things have not changed over night. In fact, Rouhani won a resounding victory in recent elections. Not to mention, as an outsider, Kerry was at a conference in Oslo,Norway where this and other things were spoken about. (First link I can find -https://financialtribune.com/articles/national/66306/zarif-attending-oslo-forum ) Kerry can not speak for the United States, but he did not suddenly become a hermit. He is immensely respected in Europe and, while not getting US information, he is not exactly sitting out in the cold.
The fact also remains that the opinions on this of Schumer, Cardin, and the Republicans have not changed from their negative positions on the nuclear deal. They were against it when Obama was in office.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)He also earned his respect from the world community. I never insinuated he was or should be a hermit.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)He does and he knew that he was pushing for something very unpopular. The fact is that even had the vote been just on Iran sanctions, it would have passed easily. This is something Kerry absolutely knew. Therefore, I assume his choice to speak out on that was for reasons other than influencing the vote on that bill - which at the time was just on Iran.
Bernie's vote was a protest vote - where he said he was for the Russian sanctions, but disagreed because it included sancions on Iran. It was a protest vote because he knew the bill was passing very easily.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Correct
But he isn't protesting what you are claiming and I put much more weight behind the actions of people like Leahy. Politicians will be politicians.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)karynnj
(59,498 posts)My Senator explains his votes -- and he explained this. He doesnt randomly take a position against the dominant Democratic position just for the hell of it or "to differentiate" himself.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)And it seems to make perfect sense to me.
"He doesnt randomly take a position against the dominant Democratic position just for the hell of it or "to differentiate" himself."
That is exactly what he did. Sanders is great. I like him a lot. I would never make a claim about him as you just did. This was pure red meat to his base.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)One advantage of living in Burlington is that I know scores of people who knew him for decades. While I know none of them who would suggest him for sainthood, many who have laughed about some of his quirks, but almost all respect him for being a very serious representative, well versed on issues, whose decisions are informed by his values.
NONE have said that he is a phony politician. You do not get that his real base is the people who elected him to represent them in the Senate. The fact is the European Union was against the Iran sanctions as well. It is absolutely consistent with Bernie's views to think that they are a bad idea.
I also do not see this this vote as being "popular with his base" whether the base is defined as Vermont or the people who were impressed by him in 2016. It is very very clearly a minority view in teh United States.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)That includes people who know him.
"Though I would not say I know him".
"Minority view in teh United States."
And with almost all congressional elected officials.
Additionally, I never called him a phony politician. That's on you. I stated just the opposite. I've always been impressed in his ability to play politics. While this move is a bit less than impressive, it's an understandable political move.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)view of what is right or wrong.
As to "that includes people who know him", I will continue to listen to people who live on his block, who worked with him in the mayor's office, who he knows on a first .. and second name basis. Some friends for several decades. Compared to a claim by an anonymous person on the internet.
Do you honestly think that the majority of people in the US are against sanctions on Iran?
Autumn
(44,980 posts)I wouldn't support anything they came up with regarding Iran over Obama's deal.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Autumn
(44,980 posts)I trust nothing Trump and his group will do.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Non-sequitor.
Iran might back out of the deal. For a myriad of reasons. Most people I know fully understand the ING must be sanctioned. The JCPOA wasn't meant to tie our hands.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)I don't know how much clearer I can get.
I
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Acronyms, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
I 1 (ī
pron.
Used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.
n. pl. I's
The self; the ego.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/I
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise. Without that insinuation there was zero point for it.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)am talking about what I did not say. Perhaps it's your understanding that is the problem. I means me, myself. If you read anything else into that it makes it seem like you want an argument and I'm not interested in arguing your perception. Have a nice day
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Drop an argument that doesn't hold up, then dig in even deeper, with a final proclamation that one does not want to argue.
Thank you for the smile. Have a wonderful afternoon.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)That's on your and your perception of aggression. You don't like my opinion I'm fine with it. It's not a requirement to me. Not everything that is posted need turn into an argument, and it's not a proclamation to end a conversation with someone who wishes to argue a point. Especially a point or an argument that wasn't made. I have found it best to step away when people wish to do that. it's just not productive.
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)Autumn
(44,980 posts)Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)A total of 522 Representatives and Senators voted on this bill. The combined vote was 517-5. The no votes were cast by four republicans and Sanders.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)our election, and the GOP doesn't care because it benefitted them.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)President Obama worked hard to make that deal. Critics of that deal would love to blow it up with sanctions.
As usual, just as with the Iraq War, Bernie does not run with the stampeding herd.
News reports barely even report the effect on Iran.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Having his cake and eating it too?
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)There will always be hypocrisy in politics. I don't think it's necessarily hypocrisy when the action itself poses no significance outside of your base.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Was above his ken
Weekend Warrior
(1,301 posts)I don't hold him up as a deity. I do get and agree with your overall point.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Nevernose
(13,081 posts)He's more honest than any Republican and many Democrats, but Sanders fanatics (of which I am one) are deluding themselves if they think he's "above all that."
There are very few pieces of legislation with his name on it. There are few pieces of liberal legislation in the last twenty five years without his fingerprints on it. People miss the sausage-making aspect of politics. Sanders is just better at the political sleight of hand necessary than most (that, to me, is one of the starkest differences between Bill and Hillary. Both good, brilliant people, but he was a better illusionist).
That's why I don't care if Sanders is on paper a Dem. He's a Dem in every action, but "independence" is his reelection schtick. It's part of the gross, perverted part of politics.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)But asked and answered about a million times.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)to remain. But I guess any reason will do. I would't trust anything the pukes came up with.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)we know that is IMPOSSIBLE, another reason is in fact in existence here.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)that Trump and the pukes would come up with. Please point out where I said
Let me make it easy for you here is my post,
to remain. But I guess any reason will do. I would't trust anything the pukes came up with.
If you want to accuse me of things I didn't say I think we are done here. Have a nice day.
metalbot
(1,058 posts)What the Republicans have done here is put together a very nice poison pill. Either vote against sanctions on Russia (which would be a weird behavior if you thought they meddled) or vote for sanctions on Iran that help incrementally push towards a potential exist to the deal with Iran.
Right now our greater thread is Russia, and Democratic Senators are voting on that issue.
I think it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that if the Iran sanctions were in a separate bill that the vote would be anywhere near the same.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Autumn
(44,980 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)the male Independent.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)I don't give a flying fiddlers fuck what the gender of the Democratic Senator or the Independent Senator is. As long as they have my back, which Sanders and Warren always have, I trust their judgment.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'll take SOS John Kerry's judgement and I'm female.
Speaking at a San Francisco fundraiser, Kerry argued that new sanctions could be seen as a provocation by Iran.
If we become super provocative in ways that show the Iranian people there has been no advantage to this, that there is no gain, and our bellicosity is pushing them into a corner, thats dangerous and that could bring a very different result, said Kerry, who led U.S. negotiations on the deal under former President Obama.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336494-kerry-new-iran-sanctions-may-be-dangerous
Male independent? Why does it matter if it's a lion or a lioness?
seaglass
(8,171 posts)weighing Trump/Putin desire to remove Russia sanctions against the possibility of blowing up the Iran deal.
That is what Congress had to weigh. Not just Iran sanctions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Let's recap: some posters are claiming Bernie is at best "friendly" with the Russian government and at worst a traitor to his own country, and the one above suggested that we should trust Elizabeth Warren on this issue because she's a woman. That's what I was addressing and why I brought up Secretary of State Kerry's opinion.
Congress had to consider all parts of the bill, and like SOS Kerry senator Sanders thinks it's too risky to provoke iran at this time. I respect his decision to vote against any bill that might threaten the Iran deal which hardliners in both countries would love to scrap. Kerry is concerned about new Iran sanctions so it's not unreasonable to assume others are as well.
If they want to convince me that Bernie voted against this bill because he's Russian sympathizer they're going to have to produce some actual evidence that he's lying about the sanctions potentially threatening the Iran deal.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)agrees with her, but I find her to be smarter.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Autumn
(44,980 posts)Shit happens ya know. I'm on my phone and I didn't use the stylus.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Both Bernie and Elizabeth are intelligent and they disagree occasionally, that certainly isn't a reason blame their chromosomes or think either can't be trusted. That seems a little naive. I don't get the whole' love them one day, hate them the next' thing others have with our senators. They're human and disagreeing with a vote or a statement isn't a good reason to throw them under the bus every other day.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)put the needs of the American people first.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I used to think we were more evolved than that but I guess I was wrong. It's easy to see how one can become a msanthrope.
And I totally agree with your last point!
Autumn
(44,980 posts)their desire to stand and vote for what is right.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)I haven't seen that.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)have supported it, so my suspicions hold true.
Sure is a whole lot of push back here for a politician who is not a democrat.
I wish we could do a poll here to see how many people trust Sanders, given what we now know I would hope that on
DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND the number thinking they cant trust him would be very HIGH
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)dragonlady
(3,577 posts)Oh, and when you start your poll, put me down as a yes on trusting.
Autumn
(44,980 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Autumn
(44,980 posts)But only the precious ones, not the icky ones, we will leave those to Trump and his republicans.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)This was clearly a loaded bill where Democrats had to choose between the lesser of two evils. Given the importance of the Russia issue, they came down on that side. It doesn't mean it was a perfect choice, simply the one they felt they had to make. Bernie decided the other way, almost certainly knowing that his vote wouldn't effect the outcome anyway.
Turning this into a trust issue is ridiculous, please give it a rest.
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #28)
Post removed
demmiblue
(36,823 posts)haveahart
(905 posts)e doesn't want to do that while they are in compliance with the nuke agreement.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)leftstreet
(36,098 posts)Keep us all focused
rateyes
(17,438 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,286 posts)rateyes
(17,438 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)karynnj
(59,498 posts)Burlington also had a link-up with the city of Yaroslavl, in Russia. Not to mention, it was 1988 when Gorbachev was in power.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-11/how-bernie-sanders-spent-his-soviet-honeymoon
This idiotic primary campaign story was as ridiculous as the attacks on Bill Clinton in 1992 for visiting Moscow for a week in 1969 while a student at Oxford. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1992/oct/09/usa.martinwalker
Me.
(35,454 posts)But if you want to be serious about it....While he may've had other reasons for being there, it was also during the time that is traditionally when the honeymoon is taken, a few days after the wedding.
Greybnk48
(10,162 posts)Bullshit OP.
Thank You.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)in the bill, but it made no difference if he voted against it, so he did just that. Remember: he is an independent Senator. Sometimes he votes as an independent.
I doubt his reason was similar to Rand Paul's reason, though. Apparently it had to do with some concern about sanctions on Iran. But, Senator Sanders vote had no effect, so it was merely a statement of disagreement. He knew it would have no effect when he cast it.
And, since it's really meaningless, in terms of the actual bill, we could just ignore it and move on to other discussions, I guess.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)He and Bernie opposed the bill for the same reasons.
MineralMan
(146,254 posts)The bill passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress. Their negative votes don't really matter at all. Not even as protest votes, really.
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)It's more complicated then that. Rand Paul and the 3 congressional republicans are all Libertarian isolationists. They voted against the bill because they don't like sanctions. Bernie has some isolationist tendencies but is not purely anti sanctions, and he thought it was dubious that the Republicans were using the very real concern of Russia to also add increased sanctions on Iran. A move that Bernie thought could endanger the Iranian agreement. So no being anti sanction like Rand Paul is not the same reason as thinking that there was an underlying motive to this particular sanction.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Rand Paul supports sanctions against North Korea. He also supports sanctions against Saudi Arabia.
With respect to this bill, his major issue with it was the same as Bernie's, sanctions against Iran.
Here's what Paul said:
New sanctions may even have a counterproductive effect if Iran decides they somehow abrogate the nuclear agreement. If Iran pulls out of the agreement, I think we will really regret hastily adding new sanctions.
Here's what Bernie said:
Following Trumps comments that he wont recertify Irans compliance with the nuclear agreement I worry new sanctions could endanger it"
Alittleliberal
(528 posts)kimbutgar
(21,055 posts)I threw away my Bernie t-shirt a couple of weeks ago. Didn't even want to keep it as a rag.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)for another generation.
David__77
(23,329 posts)I have no information that Sanders "seem friendly" to Putin.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)you seem Putin-friendly.
David__77
(23,329 posts)Ok.
Note that it was bundled with other provisions that have nothing to do with Russia.
If Russian sanctions were bundled with a ban on abortion, would you support that? If you opposed to that, would that make you "seeming friendly" with Putin.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Poorly briefed.
Maybe you can explain exactly how these sanctions would impact the nuclear deal?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The deal was only made after a lot of negotiation and compromise on both sides. If Iran suddenly feel like they're being attacked by a country they recently signed a deal with (a deal that the moderate Iranians put a lot of political capital into) then it just hands the hardliners ammunition and increases the pressure to withdraw.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)sanctions have the sort of power you think they do?
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It has very little to do with whether the targeted individuals are the ones with power, the point is that to the hardliners it's an attack on Iran by the US. To get the deal through, the moderates had to build a case that opening up towards the west was in their countries best interests. Now their enemies can point at this bill and say 'ok the people we opened up to have once again attacked us'. It's damaging for the moderates and stupid if we ever want to normalize relations.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Maybe this is a way of showing the hardliners that violation of a UN resolution will not go unpunished.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)It's one of their convenient bogeymen that they can scream about and scaremonger with. The way they fought Obama tooth and nail to try and stop the deal, and then passed that asinine visa waiver law just after showed exactly how they think.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But why let facts get in the way of questioning the Senator's loyalty to his country ?
Especially since he's been very outspoken about Russian meddling in our election.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)Well not as far as the American public's opinion goes anyway.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And BOXES IN HIS GARAGE! And then there was the time he joined a COMMIE COMMUNE IN ISRAEL!
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)With all the flat out denial regarding the damage this bill will do to the Obama Iran nuclear deal - to the point that some people are actually arguing that the guy who finished the negotiations John Kerry doesn't know what he's talking about regarding whether these sanctions threaten the deal, it's not surprising that those touting this vote as a test of Democratic Party loyalty have ignored another question.
If the Russian portion of the Russia/Korea/Iran sanctions bill is punishment for helping Trump and the Republicans win, why did almost every Republican, including the same Republicans who openly deny Russian interference, vote for it?
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Dems have no control over that s we might as well get Russia sanctions with it. I think it's well worth the trade. Iran is aligned with Russia and can not be trusted anyway.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)some posters inability to explain why, IF this bill was undeniably a rebuke to Russia for Trussiagate - in fact so undeniably that as the OP implicitly claims anyone who didn't vote for it was validating Trump's election - did even one Republican much less virtually all of them vote for it?
If people are going to keep throwing out loyalty tests for legislators who vote with our Party even more often than some of its members, they need to come up with tests that at least make sense.
Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)there is hypocrisy and I am not saying there is in this case. Regarding loyalty, Bernie himself says
he is not loyal to the democratic party. Isn't that why hw is not a dem? Again, I am not trashing him... It's just what I understand from what he himself has said.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Sanctions against Russia for rigging our election is only common sense.
autorank
(29,456 posts)The U.S. and Russia go at each other every single day in cyber warfare and covert (barely) attempts to disrupt the each other's political and economic systems. Sanctions tell a half truth by iplying that this competition is one sided.
This is all the more PATHETIC when thee Democrats have the issue of the modern era - the insane and cruel effort of the Republicans to take health care away from millions. The people know when thye're being screwed. That explains the spontaneous crowds, many in Red states, at town halls.
What an opportunity toi serve the poeple and to run th Republicans to ground, maybe permanently.
While the people have spoken, the leadership of the party are preoccupied with a Hail Mary hoipe that somehow McCarethyism and the Red Scare can work today. Guess what? People care about jobs, the future of the planet, and their healthcaree not a bunch of poor imitations of Senator Joseph McCarthy and, a political mentor to Trump, the revolting Roy Cohn.
continentalop2
(29 posts)I thought that was odd.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)can you link that for me please
if so, then I KNOW I am right about this guy
Brother Buzz
(36,375 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)Nay I Sanders, Bernie VT
look closer
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Looks like you were wrong, people on DU trust Bernie after all.
Demsrule86
(68,456 posts)Demsrule86
(68,456 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Interesting....
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Carl Levin and Maxine Waters? I don't know, why don't you ask ALL THREE OF THEM?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Wow, you're right!
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s223
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h608
How SCANDALOUS! I feel the need to type IN CAPS TO EXPRESS MY SHOCK AND HORROR!
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Not one little bit.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)good for arms makers.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Yet he didn't, in fact Bernie was adamantly opposed to it while others took to the floor and repeated Bush's lies.
Were the senators who voted for the Iraq war in bed with arms manufacturers too?
I wonder if any of our candidates have taken money from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and if you think that affected their support of the recent bombing of Syria - which Bernie also opposed.
If it didn't then I guess your new theory isn't credible either. So there's no evidence that Bernie is "friendly" to Putin or that he's a war monger because LM employs people in Vermont. What else have you got?
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Thank you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Yep, that was your post.
I'm just wondering if you're equally suspicious of other politicians or if the senator from Vermont is special for some reason. Why is his loyalty to his country in question?
melman
(7,681 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I Googled and on the lists of largest employers I saw none listed Lockheed Martin or Sandia.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That would be dairy farms so perhaps Bernie is in bed with Big Moo?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm a native and I don't know anyone who works for them or even applied for work, and good jobs are hard to find.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)He also decried the projects overruns, calling the the program incredibly wasteful, but suggested that while F-35 is deployed anywhere, I believe we should strive to protect the Vermont Air National Guards mission and maintain hundreds of jobs here in Vermont.
http://taskandpurpose.com/sanders-position-on-the-f-35-contradicts-his-views-on-defense-spending/
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)So, how does that show that Lockheed Martin is a major employer? There will be most likely less than 20 Lockheed employees supporting the stand up of F-35s in Vermont. The Vermont National Guard will be the ones flying and maintaining the aircraft stationed there.
Is there a Lockheed Martin facility in Vermont that I'm not finding on google?
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Well you may think it doesnt work, the Department of Defense does think it works, Bernie replied, adding, It employs hundreds of people. It provides a college education for hundreds of people. So for me the question is not whether we have the F-35 or not. It is here. The question for me is whether it is located in Burlington, VT or whether it is located in Florida.
http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-sanders-backs-f-35/
That's why he said he was supporting it and was against the citizen lawsuits to keep the f-35 out. If there aren't hundreds of jobs for Vermonters, why support it?
Also, Lockheed oversees Sandia.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Sanders announces Vermont contract with Sandia in partnership with UVM.
By the summer of 2013, Vermont will be the first state in the nation to have near-universal electrical smart-grid coverage and Sandia National Laboratories is setting up shop at the University of Vermont to make it all happen.
That was Sen. Bernie Sanders' announcement at a press conference in his Burlington office this morning. Gov. Peter Shumlin, Green Mountain Power CEO Mary Powell, UVM President John Bramley and Sandia Vice President Rick Stulen joined Sanders to announce a three-year, $15 million commitment to open the first-ever national laboratory in New England in Burlington.
The new lab, dubbed the Center for Energy Transformation and Innovation (CETI), will make as the centerpiece of its work the rollout of smart meters throughout the Green Mountain State, enabling all the state's utilities to better manage energy consumption and better integrate renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, into the power grid. The $15 million commitment comes in addition to the $69 million already allocated to Vermont from the federal government to roll out smart meters statewide.
As Vermont shifts from its reliance on fossil fuels to more renewable energy sources, "with those technologies comes an intermittency that we have to figure out how to manage," Sandia's Stulen explained. "So, if the state and the country [are] to achieve penetration greater than 30 to 40 percent of renewables, we need to understand how to manage that in a way that everybody has the power they need all the time."
***
Sanders and Shumlin both describe the lab as a major driver of new sustainable energy development as well as job creation. Although neither offered a prediction about how many new jobs could potentially be created by CETI's presence at UVM, "The history of where national laboratories are located is a history of economic development," Sanders said.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-and-sandia-announce-new-15-million-energy-lab-at-university-of-vermont/Content?oid=2179223
This collaboration between the DOE, Sandia, and IBM to bring a state-of-the-art photovoltaic testing center to Vermont is a clear example of how Vermont is leading the way to transform our economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy, said Sanders, who serves on the Senate energy and environment committees. The two-acre testing site is on IBM-owned land in Williston, Vt., and will initially accommodate up to 300 kW of solar power.
Thanks to the vision of Senator Sanders, the leadership of the Department of Energy, and technical commitment from IBM, this Regional Test Center will help realize a national vision for research, demonstration and testing of cutting edge solar technology, said Steve Rottler. Sandia National Laboratories is honored to provide its technical expertise in photovoltaic systems validation and integration to manage the facility, test and analyze technology for the private sector, and engage in collaborative research with Vermont universities and utilities.
http://energy.sandia.gov/launch-of-solar-testing-site-in-vermont/
Do you have a link that actually proves Lockheed Martin is a "big employer in Vermont"?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)You said Lockheed Martin was a big employer in Vermont. It is not. I've provided two links to lists of major employers and neither Lockheed Martin nor Sandia are listed.
From your CNBC link
"The F-35 accounts for over 1,400 direct and indirect jobs, with an economic impact of over $124 million in Vermont," said Eric Schnaible, F-35 International Communications Manager for Lockheed Martin. This figure accounts not only for 1,100 jobs with the Vermont Air National Guard, but with jobs within the aerospace sector and other local businesses. While 45 states and Puerto Rico are involved in the production of the aircraft, Vermont specifically is home to three supplier locations, and according to Business Insider, the plane's bay doors and GAU-22/A gun system are both produced there.
Three suppliers to F-35 are in Vermont. Stationing the aircraft at Burlington will lead to jobs that support that. None of these are direct Lockheed Martin jobs.
Sanders is right. The aircraft are being built and the F-16s are going away. He was right to try and get them in Burlington versus another state. That his job as a senator.
You're upset with Sanders for F-35 but at least be accurate.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)I think it was one of his smarter moves. I also think it's part of the reason he didn't vote for sanctions.
Lockheed was rumored to be looking into Iran last year
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-iran-helicopters-idUSKCN0YP2IO
I think you are also forgetting that Sandia is Lockheed, too.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That claim isn't supported by evidence so how can your assumption about his vote be correct when it's based on a faulty premise?
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Post 170
I Googled and on the lists of largest employers I saw none listed Lockheed Martin or Sandia.
Neither Lockheed Martin nor Sandia are "big employers" in Vermont.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Great find! This could explain a lot about the Nay vote.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Great link.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)a rumoured target of Lockheed:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-iran-helicopters-idUSKCN0YP2IO
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)otherwise. He speaks openly about the job opportunities they represent to his state.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)There's a reason Bernie is popular and stands a great chance at re-election.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Even Senators from New York and all over.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)That explains a lot about the concern over Iran sanctions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The VT ANG tests the F-35, they don't manufacture it. And as long as other states are manufacturing the jet Vermont's junior senator wants to keep those few jobs in Vermont.
Isn't that his job, to look out for his constituents? Why is his loyalty to his country suspect because of that?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-sanders-backs-f-35/
That's not the worst reason to support Lockheed. But arms dealers generally don't like sanctions.
There were rumors that Lockheed was looking in Iran last year:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-iran-helicopters-idUSKCN0YP2IO
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)Why not Vermont?
Sen. Sanders continues: Thats where, in the real world, if the plan is built, and it is the plan that the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force and of NATO, and if the choice is if that goes to Vermont, North Carolina-not North Carolina, South Carolina, or Florida, what is your choice as a United States Senator? Do you want it to go to South Carolina? Youre not saving anybody any money. So you have to look at these things in a, and it becomes complicated, and good friends can disagree on that. But my view is that given the reality of the damn plane, Id rather it come to Vermont than to South Carolina. And thats what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. Thats it.
http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-vermont
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)There are three final checkout and assembly plants for F-35: Fort Worth, Texas, Italy and Japan.
F-35 is going to be stationed at Burlington International Airport in support of the Vermont Air National Guard. Only a limited number of Lockheed employees will be involved with the stand up and sustainment of the F-35s stationed there.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)I don't disagree with his decisions, either getting the Lockheed sub Sandia
http://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-loves-this-dollar1-trillion-war-machine
Sen. Sanders continues: Thats where, in the real world, if the plan is built, and it is the plan that the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force and of NATO, and if the choice is if that goes to Vermont, North Carolina-not North Carolina, South Carolina, or Florida, what is your choice as a United States Senator? Do you want it to go to South Carolina? Youre not saving anybody any money. So you have to look at these things in a, and it becomes complicated, and good friends can disagree on that. But my view is that given the reality of the damn plane, Id rather it come to Vermont than to South Carolina. And thats what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. Thats it.
http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-vermont
I think he did a smart and good thing, getting those jobs.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Again neither Lockheed Martin nor Sandia are "big employers" like you've stated. The F-35 is not built in Vermont.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)are good things for Vermont although I agree with a lot of folks here that the environmental impact should be minimized.
If you are going to quibble over a word with me, okay. Sanders himself said the reason he was supporting it was for hundreds of jobs and I have no reason to doubt him.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)in Vermont. They are there. It's about Sanders 2010 and 2011 efforts. Quibbling over a word is some kind of diversion strategy, I've noticed.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)friendly to Putin
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Expecting Rain
(811 posts)authoritarians, and totalitarians.
So I should be surprised why?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)I thought that was a bit harsh.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Warpy
(111,141 posts)because he hasn't seen fit to issue a statement on that particular vote. He should but he hasn't.
I'm as befogged as you are and speculation is useless.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's the same reason he voted against it the first time, he's concerned the Iran sanctions will be used as an excuse to back out of the Iran deal - something Republicans and hardliners in Iran have been trying to do since it was signed.
Link to tweet
I don't know where people get their information about Bernie being a Russian agent. Maybe McCarthyism is becoming fashionable again?
There's a red under my bed ... 🎶
Warpy
(111,141 posts)Some people here are knee jerk Sanders opponents for all sorts of things, real and imagined.
I've learned to ignore wild speculation.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)ask who the two holdouts were and what their reasoning was. It's standard practice. What would be "kneejerk" would be to disregard a politicians votes just because it is Sanders.
There's a section of analysis behind most bills that show the expected vs. actual voting analysis for all the politicians.
BTW, this is described as a blow to Trump, which should be everyone's goal...
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Every Republican but one joined hands to deliver "a blow to Trump."
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)You should read the headlines anywhere about it. That is a huge blow to him. Who here wouldn't be united against Trump??
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)Not whether WE Democrats would unite against Trump, it's whether anyone seriously believes that a vote for this bill is really "a blow against Trump" when every Republican low life - all save three of whom just voted to carry out Trump's psychopathic vendetta against Obama's ACA - also voted for it?
Have any of you asked Skinner whether he could set up a group for this kind of stuff?
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)What "stuff"?? You can ask Skinner yourself, you probably know the forum?
And 419:3 makes really good headlines. Seriously.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)I appreciate that.
PufPuf23
(8,755 posts)Sanders is looking at specifics and the big picture rather than the hysteria of the moment is what I suspect.
louis c
(8,652 posts)He's against sanctions on Iran.
I disagree with his vote but I understand his reasoning.
Bernie is not who we have to worry about. If we had 100 Bernie Sanders in the Senate, we'd have a much better country.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,937 posts)Sanders Statement on New Iran, North Korea, Russia Sanctions
Thursday, July 27, 2017
WASHINGTON, July 27 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement after voting against legislation that would impose new sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea:
"I am strongly supportive of sanctions on Russia and North Korea. I worry very much, however, about President Trumps approach to Iran, especially in light of his recent comments that he will refuse to recertify Irans compliance with the nuclear agreement. The United States needs to engage in an even-handed approach to the crises in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism. I think new sanctions on Iran at this time take us in a dangerous direction."
Rhiannon12866
(204,772 posts)We now have a definitive answer.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He simply believes it would jeopardize the Iran deal.
Is that a COMPLETELY unfounded concern, as you see it?
Is anything worth going back to where things were before the Iran deal was made?