General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes anyone know what Bernie's reason was for being one of only 4 Senate votes
against the 2012 Magnitsky Act?
I've tried googling for the answer without success.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s223
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)it was watered down from the original version.
pnwmom
(108,914 posts)where Bernie was one of only 2 to vote against it.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Carl Levin said this.....
Levin said yesterday that he opposed the bill because the human-rights language wasn't broad enough.
"The Magnitsky language before us is not the Magnitsky language adopted by our Finance and Foreign Relations committees. Their Magnitsky language applied the same sanctions to human rights violators wherever they might be whether in Russia, or Syria, or Sudan, or North Korea, or China, or in any other country," he said of the legislation to require that human rights violators in Russia be identified, denied U.S. visas, and have their U.S. assets frozen.
"Applying the sanctions contained in this bill solely to Russians, as the House version does, not only diminishes a universal value. Because it adds a political twist, it will stoke a nationalistic response in Russia," Levin argued. "If this bill does not apply the same rule to all human rights violators, if it singles out Russian human rights violators, President Putin will no doubt appeal to the nationalistic passions of many Russians by saying that our bill isnt aimed at protecting human rights, but is aimed at Russia. We should not hand President Putin that argument."
https://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-praises-pntr-with-russia-but-not-russian-whistleblower/
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)and a poorly thought out Republican proposal. Similar to the current sanctions bill.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)I understand Carl Levin's position, but has anyone even asked Bernie about his two votes? I'd like to hear it in his own words.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)The recent votes were explained. He did not want to blow up the Iran deal. John Kerry expressed similar sentiments.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)atmosphere, no one has bothered to ask him about his previous votes?
If he didn't express anything back then, isn't it a bit of stretch to say someone else expressed similar sentiments? Similar to what exactly?
I'm just curious as to why. He's been on various shows, has no one bothered asking him in his nearly nightly appearances?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)also quite likely that Bernie agreed with Levin on the Magnitsky bill.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/271455-senate-passes-russia-trade-bill
Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against the trade bill.
Levin said Wednesday that he would have preferred that the Senate vote on its version of the bill, which included the sanctions worldwide, rather than just affecting Russia.
I dont understand why were not taking up the Senate version and applying these standards universally, Levin said on the Senate floor Wednesday night. The only answer I can get is that the House might not pass the Senate version. Well, we should do what we think is right.
"Do what we think is right" sounds like a position that Bernie would take as well.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)it's clearly a stretch.
What does Bernie have to say for himself and why doesn't anyone ever ask him about his own votes?
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)The stretch would be to believe that Bernie wasn't in agreement with Carl Levin.
Bernie votes his conscience.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)The stretch is thinking that this makes any sense. You have nothing stating what Bernie's reasoning was.
Bernie doesn't seem to be explaining anything, nor does he seem to be very effective. He doesn't explain his vote, and his followers just basically say whatever they wish to justify his actions.
Since he didn't bother explaining why he made this vote and NOBODY ASKED HIM, it's weird how his conscience works. Was this just grandstanding, did he say anything in debate?
Saying that Carl Levin spoke for him in 2012 or Kerry did at a some point, and that's why he did something in 2017 really doesn't cut it.
If he's voting his conscience as one of TWO dissenting votes, he should be explaining it. But the silence seems to suggest that this is just a contrarian thing, and a political ploy.
I'd prefer it if people who claim to vote their conscience would explain why they chose to vote that way, that's what they usually do when it's a principled stance.
Response to Ninsianna (Reply #36)
Post removed
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)spoke for him in 2012, for a vote taken in 2017.
I'm sorry you could not find evidence of an explanation or a principled stand, and that you are frustrated that you could not back up your claims, but the one wallowing in hate is not me.
The primaries are over, and one cannot hide behind such ridiculous accusations when an elected official makes a vote, that his followers insist is based on "conscience" but cannot or will not back that up with an explanation of what principle was at play.
Please cease the wallowing, the offensiveness and the inability to handle not being able to back up your points. Lose an argument gracefully, when you don't have facts, attacking me won't magically make them appear.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)Thanks for being so direct for a pretty simple question.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)SunSeeker
(51,295 posts)Sanders voted for Obamacare even though it was "watered down from the original version" (didn't have the public option). If he wanted it broader and thought a broader bill could pass, then he should have just introduced a broader bill. But in the meantime, you vote yes, so that we at least have something in place to punish murder of dissidents.
Got a link that shows Sanders' reasoning?
Response to pnwmom (Original post)
SHRED This message was self-deleted by its author.
VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)In historical context, I'm pretty sure Waters, Reed, Whitehouse, and Levin would admit their vote was a mistake. But then again, hindsight is always 20/20.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)as he said "Because it adds a political twist, it will stoke a nationalistic response in Russia"
leftstreet
(36,064 posts)pnwmom
(108,914 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)pnwmom
(108,914 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)R B Garr
(16,914 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I think that we also deserve answers to our questions.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)be his tax returns. That should be basic, and someone who makes so many assumptions about others should be accountable as well.
rgbecker
(4,804 posts)Throw their support behind his commie single payer healthcare plan.
It's so obvious, I can't believe you are even asking.
klook
(12,131 posts)Trashing thread.
Bluepinky
(2,256 posts)Don't you all get tired of this?
pnwmom
(108,914 posts)I expect that he had a reason but I can't find it.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,910 posts)It's more how some of "the usual suspects" have used it.
stonecutter357
(12,678 posts)MaryLouisaWillis
(44 posts)the truth is, he doesn't ever vote against Russia.
George II
(67,782 posts)...(five total in both houses)
Four republicans and one independent.
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)That alone is a curiosity. But the two votes together look like a pattern. Since Russia is a huge news item lately, it's going to draw attention.
Justice
(7,182 posts)This article offers both support and criticism of Sanders' position.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernies-vote-on-sanctions-was-about-protecting-the-iran-deal-from-trump_us_597df7f8e4b0da64e879b55e
Here is his explanation:
In response to the criticism, Sanders tweeted: I am strongly supportive of sanctions on Russia and North Korea. However, I worry very much about President Trumps approach to Iran. Following Trumps comments that he wont re-certify Irans compliance with the nuclear agreement I worry new sanctions could endanger it.
H.R. 3364 lumps Russia and Iran sanctions together, giving both parties incentive to ensure its passage. With Democrats eager to punish Russia for its election interference in order to put Trump in a bind, and Republicans unhappy with Obamas Iran deal wanting to crack down on Iran, politicians on both sides had incentive to overlook potential problems with the bill."
R B Garr
(16,914 posts)It's in the OP.