Why did Bernie join Rand Paul in voting against new Russian sanctions?

[pnwmom]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/russia-sanctions-senate-trump/index.html

(CNN)The Senate was nearly unanimous on Thursday passing a bill that would slap Russia with new sanctions and give Congress the power to review any White House attempts to roll them back.

The Senate approved the bill 98-2, with Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont voting against the measure. The bill, which includes both Russian and Iranian sanctions, now heads to the House, which still needs to pass it before it goes to President Donald Trump's desk.

The measure is widely seen as a rebuke to Trump, as it hits Russia with new sanctions to punish Moscow for its interference in US elections, as well as over Moscow's aggression in Ukraine and Syria.

The bill establishes a review process for Congress to have a say whether the White House eases Russia sanctions. It also establishes new sanctions against those conducting cyberattacks on behalf of the Russian government as well as supplying arms to Syrian President Bashar Assad, and it allows for sanctions to hit Russia's mining, metals, shipping and railways sectors.

[Trial_By_Fire]

1. This has been posted and answered already...

Post like these are simple hate-filled and divisive...

[pnwmom]

2. So tell me the answer, since you appear to know it. n/t

[msongs]

3. BS did not like the provisions concerning obamas iran deal. nt

[pnwmom]

19. Thank you! n/t

[pansypoo53219]

23. ditto. i figured it was something deep.

[Staph]

5. I, too, would like to know.

This post is four paragraphs from a CNN story. Factual. Straightforward. Both Sanders and Paul voted against a bill.

What makes it hate-filled and divisive?

[olegramps]

69. Tell me difference between Sanders and Trump on tariffs?

Sanders opposed the TPP agreement, Trump trashed and now China is gleefully filling the void when we existed the table. Yes, there were things wrong with the agreement, but rather than voiding it we should have use our power to change and improve it. The same with NAFTA and the Korean agreements. What has Sanders ever accomplished in the government except getting a couple of Post Offices named?

[JI7]

4. he said it would hurt the Iran nuclear deal

[nini]

6. Because he likes being contrary?

[Trial_By_Fire]

7. More like Sanders is a principled statesperson...

This was an Iran sanctions bill and they threw in a Russia amendment...which Sanders voter for...

[nini]

11. yes

of course

[pnwmom]

20. Why didn't you just say this in the first place? n/t

[EffieBlack]

59. Funny thing

Sanders has often used the fact that there was something in a bill that he liked as an excuse for voting for something that was bad overall . . .

You know, like the Crime Bill.

But if you want to think that Sanders and Rand Paul are the ONLY principled statespersons in the Senate, ok.

[Trial_By_Fire]

62. Sanders voting record is top notch... a statesperson

I see you made up the entire notion that I said 'Sanders and Paul are the ONLY principled statespersons in the Senate'.
Was it to fit your own narrative of hate?

[EffieBlack]

66. Where did I get the "notion" that you said Sanders and Paul are the ONLY principled statespersons

in the Senate?

Hmmm. Well, let's see . . .

Oh, yes. I got that "notion" when you responded to a question about why Sanders and Paul were the only Senators to vote against a bill by saying, "he's a principled statesperson." The logical conclusion is that the senators who voted for the bill are NOT principled statespeople . . .

You can whine all you want about being misunderstood and accuse me of "hate" - your comments speak for themselves.

[brush]

29. Bingo! Keeps his name in the news too.

[nini]

35. yep

He's getting boring.

[Les Cowbell]

8. There's this helpful internet thing called Google

Could have taken the thread title, put it in a google search and gotten your answer. I mean if that really was the intention; if it was instead to take a shot at Sanders then the ones who said it was just stirring up trouble are correct.

[MuseRider]

13. Could also search DU

and seen how many times this was posted already and get the answer. Old timer posters KNOW this so.......

[L. Coyote]

50. Everyone should be required to kick a post from earlier in the day before posting in GD.

Want to read the latest news, click the 5 pages back button.

[MuseRider]

63. They probably would kick it

but that would be as unnecessary as posting the question again, right? She wanted an answer and there were several ways to get one rather than post another thread. That kinda makes it obvious that this poster, who has been known to do this, just wants to stir up some crap again.

[pangaia]

37. I vote it was option 2.. but that's just me..

[QC]

39. Come now. That primary's not gonna rehash itself. n/t

[KPN]

52. Exactly!

Nothing new.

[DefenseLawyer]

9. PUMAs til the bitter end.

Some things never change.

[leftstreet]

10. Why did ALL Dems vote to dismantle Obama's legacy?

Part of Obama's legacy is the Obama/Kerry nuke deal with Iran

Why was Bernie the ONLY one to stand up to that dismantling?

[JI7]

12. it doesn't dismantle the nuke deal

[leftstreet]

14. Hyperbole, it's what's for breakfast!

Apparently.

The phrasing is no different than linking Sanders to Rand Paul

[karynnj]

33. Schumer was ALWAYS against it

With Obama gone, the majority leader has the most influence. Nor to mention, Cardin, the ranking member of the SFRC was pretty wishy washy on it too. Why? AIPAC.

Obama and Kerry put US interests and the wotld's issues first. It wasn't easy or popular, but it likely avoided a war. Both men have said that leaders of some countries wanted the US to bomb Iran.

[moonscape]

44. Yes, Schumer gave that disingenuous interview where he

claimed he was still thinking about it, while all were awaiting his decision. It was obvious he was milking it.

Not a fan of Schumer.

[Autumn]

49. Former SOS John Kerry seems to think that new sanctions on Iran could be dangerous.

But hey, what does he know? Besides, everything Obama has done has to be undone by the orange shitgibbon. The Dems should not have voted for this unless it was a stand alone Russia sanctions bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kerry-imposing-sanctions-iran-dangerous-47856076

[EffieBlack]

60. Because Bernie is perfect and every single Democrats is a complete sellout

Yeah - that must be it.

[Canoe52]

15. Seems like legit question to me, somehow I missed

hearing about who the 2 was in the 98-2 vote, and I'm on here at least 3 times a day. First I heard it was Bernie was with this post.

[still_one]

16. Sanders says the reason he voted against it was because he was concerned that the

the bill also included sanctions against Iran might endanger the Iran nuclear deal.

Here are the sanctions the bill imposes upon Iran:

It imposes mandatory sanctions on people involved in Iran's ballistic missile program, and anyone who does business with them. The measure also would apply to terrorism sanctions to the country's Revolutionary and enforce an arms embargo.

The Democratic Senators have said that the new Iran sanctions won't undermine or impede enforcement of the nuclear deal

I agree with the Democratic Senators, this won't endanger the Iran nuclear deal. The most obvious reason being that it isn't in Iran's interest to do that.

[pnwmom]

21. Thank you, still_one.

[Hekate]

42. Yea, thank you. smh

[LAS14]

17. Just curious, what was Paul's reason? nt

[Bleacher Creature]

18. His stated answer doesn't pass the smell test.

Not a single Democrat had the same concerns? Not Durbin? Franken? Brown?

[QC]

55. John Kerry opposed the sanctions, but what could he possibly know

about the treaty that he helped broker?

Yeah, there must be some very wicked motivation here, something sufficient to justify rehashing the primary.

[Trial_By_Fire]

22. Sanders voted no on the Afganistan and Iraq co-called wars...

Congresswomen Barbara Lee was the sole Congress person voting against the Authorization to use force.

Do you also hate Congresswomen Lee and question her vote?

[paleotn]

26. ???

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Dragging Barbara Lee into this thread. Non sequitur much?

[still_one]

46. There is also a big difference between sanctions and going to war.

[Trial_By_Fire]

56. Stretch? No. Non sequitur? No.

It shows how a Congress person can be principled and correct even thou no one else voted for it.

[still_one]

28. This is is trying to compare Apples with organges. Not the same thing

For informational purposes, Sanders did support the use of force in Afghanistan after 9/11. He did vote against the IWR.

The sanctions are primarily against Russia for its cyber attacks, and trying to interfere with out election. The sanctions regarding Iran are very limited.
They involve Iran's ballistic missile, and anyone who does business with them regarding that program. This would also apply to terrorism sanctions, and enforce an arms embargo in that regard.


Regardless, voting on war, and voting on sanctions are not the same thing

[karynnj]

34. John Kerry agrees with Bernie

Adding sanctions immediately after Iran reelected the most moderate guy on the ballot. Not to mention it follows Trump"s belligerent rhetoric in Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The Democrats could not have stopped this, but I for one am happy that my Senator spoke up and voted as he did here. I know many would disagree, but this is a vote of conscience.

[still_one]

38. I understand that. It is a difference of opinion. I don't think this will affect the Iran

nuclear agreement at all

As you said, even if all the Democrats voted no, it still wouldn't have stopped this.

One thing it does do, and that is rebuff trump because of the Russian sanctions.

The real danger that exists is what trump and the republicans are trying to do. Destroy Medicaid, roll back civil rights, roll back environmental protections, undo the diplomatic relations made with Cuba, destroy the Iran nuclear agreement, and undo every positive thing President Obama accomplished, and the Democrats did since FDR.

[KPN]

53. So if it's a matter of opinion, isn't Bernie entitled to his opinion?

Seems to me that Bernie's concerned about how this might ultimately undermine the Iran nuclear deal. Seems legitimate to me.

[still_one]

57. Where did I say he wasn't? I simply stated I do not believe his assessment is correct, and

stated as I understand it what those limited sanctions on Iran were, and they essentially applied to the ballistic missile program

[JCanete]

54. oh how I hate the "even if all democrats had voted no" arguments. That is so much wiggle room

we afford them that basically allows for anything. I understand everybody, including Sanders, has used that argument for previous votes, but it sucks.

The difference of opinion here is with the very person who made this deal happen? I get it, he could be wrong...but without me knowing the details, isn't this essentially watering down our side of the bargain, even if indirectly? Why wouldn't that have a potential impact?

[still_one]

61. I wasn't arguing that, I was just afriming what the poster I was responding to said. The fact that

those who decided to not vote for Hillary, vote third party, or not vote at all essentially made that possible. ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

The choices were never more obvious in 2016, not only at the presidential level, but at the Senate level also.

Every Democrat who ran for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican

You hate the argument, "even if all Democrats had voted no". Well, I hate the arguments that people used for not voting, or voting for third party candidates, from the false equivalencies, "there is no difference between the candidates so it doesn't matter", to the willful ignorance of people who make every excuse in the book from "I wasn't motivated enough, or it is always someone else's fault why they didn't vote."

None of what is happening should be a surprise to anyone. What did they expect if trump won the presidency, and the republicans gained control of Congress?

Noam Chomsky said it best: Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

"“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

well, they sure did, "make a bad mistake", and now everyone has to live with those consequences

[JCanete]

64. elections have barely had consequences for republicans. We got 8 years of obstruction. I am

all for our politicians not sacrificing the American people at the altar of that tit-for-tat game, but sacrificing them at the altar of "elections have consequences" is even more disturbing to me. I'm not saying this bill does that, although generally speaking, there's got to be something wrong with a bill that almost all Republicans sign onto, particularly when, as you say, they are in control. But then maybe not. This could be one of the few times that's not the case. I'm just saying that "well it was going to pass anyway" doesn't give me any confidence in our system. I want to know who helped to get it passed and by what narrow margin it succeeded. I don't want the convolution of these vote parsings.

As to Chomsky, I agree with him, its a very very risky approach to opt out and risk a Trump Presidency, and after the convention, I came down on the same side of things. That said, being as certain as he is suggests more confidence in the direction our machinery has been taking us than I have. Trump's viability is a symptom of something horribly wrong with our system. That something has been mostly ignored by Democrats as well as all of the Republicans, and now here we are. Had we gotten Clinton, maybe we'd be here in 4 or 8 years. The argument for Trump was never that he's such a monster people will wake up, its always been that he's an incompetent one, and maybe he'll be so brutish and stupid that we'll all get a peak behind the curtain, and that wakes us the fuck up.

That said, yeah, I think it was the wrong call too. I just don't hate on people for making it.

[still_one]

65. I agree with most of the substance of your post,

[Trial_By_Fire]

58. Apples and oranges? no...

Sorry about my typo on the Sanders vote on Afghanistan. I actually looked it up before posting my response. My mistake.

The bill was actually a Iran sanctions bill and they threw in the Russian sanctions.

To say sanctions and war are not the same in terms of voting is making up your own conditions. What it does
show is a Senator voting on principles. I agree with Sanders logic on his vote. Sorry, your hate lingers on...

[LenaBaby61]

24. OP, a few Bernie supporter friends ....

Are having issues with Bernie lately. One told me yesterday that she thought that the Iranian deal is was a done deal and had little to do with russia, but when she said she heard Malcolm Nance questioning Bernie's voting against sanctioning russia because he also said the Iranian deal was a done deal and had nothing to do with russia, she said that she KNEW Bernie was more than likely just being a contrary, old fussbudget. HER words not mine.

[left-of-center2012]

25. Bernie's not our enemy -- Trump is

2018 is around the corner, and we need to defeat the GOP.

[paleotn]

27. This!

You are spot on. Let it go, folks. His vote didn't matter anymore than Run Paul's. He had his reasons, which I may or may not agree with. Bigger fish to fry right now then to hung up and cause a stink about one Senate vote.

[Hekate]

30. I'm sure St Bernard has his reasons

[karynnj]

32. Protecting the Iran nuclear deal?

[Hekate]

43. If every sngle Democratic Senator voted yes, including E. Warren and K. Harris...

... I wonder if Bern was just feeling curmudgeonly and contrary that day.

[karynnj]

31. The bill included both iran and Russian sanctions

John Kerry argued against the Iran sanctions, because Rouhani was just reelected and they could impact thr nuclear deal. Bernie spoke against them on the floor of the Senate.

Many powerful Senators wanted BOTH and putting them together multiplied the risk in voting against the bill with both of them.

Bernie's vote was consistent with his Senate speech.

[oberliner]

36. Here's his explanation

Link to tweet

/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F10029210283

[pnwmom]

41. Thanks!

[Tiggeroshii]

40. Because more Iran sanctions is far more stupid

[ucrdem]

45. This sounds like made-to-fail vapor legislation.

I'm having difficulty seeing Trump sign into law a bill that takes away his power. Am I missing something?

[OnDoutside]

47. If two thirds of the House and Senate vote for it, Trump

won't be able to veto it.

[Demsrule86]

48. He said he wanted solidarity with Iran as it was attacked and he didn't want to risk

the nuclear agreement...the comments from Democrats were not kind on the websites I went on.

[INdemo]

51. That was expalined earlier.Chnces are Trump will veto this bill

.

[JI7]

67. the Large Number of Senate Votes means they can override the Veto

[stonecutter357]

68. K&R