2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Is it now abundantly clear why DWS and Hillary want to limit exposure to voters? [View all]cui bono
(19,926 posts)Where is the link to this vote? I don't see this in the IWR you linked to either, I just glanced through quickly now.
Also, what's the background of this alleged vote? Was there something that would have made him vote for this, was it tied to anything, was it an inconsequential vote done for political reasons? I'll have to look into it if you can provide the citation for the vote, but really, you can't possibly really believe that this is worse than voting on the IWR, which as you say INCLUDED this piece, which means Hillary voted for this as well since she voted Yes on the IWR. Sanders voted No. Perhaps he realized it was a mistake and he actually RECTIFIED it rather than merely apologized for a wrong vote that actually AUTHORIZED WAR.
Not sure how you think that voting No on something makes one responsible for it. Twisted logic there. No, Sanders was not the least bit responsible for ISIS since he did not give authorization to invade Iraq, especially not on false pretenses and manufactured evidence. In other words, he wasn't duped into voting for a war, nor did he allow himself to vote for it for any other reasons which could include political gain.
As to the gun vote, is that the one that would not allow manufacturers to be held accountable for what someone did with their product? If so, then it was a very reasonable, responsible and important vote. We don't hold Ford or Chevy accountable when someone runs another person over with their brand of vehicle. That would be completely wrong to do just as it would be wrong to do that with a gun manufacturer. You cannot hold a company responsible for someone misusing their product. Now if they manufacture a faulty product that malfunctions, then yes, they need to be liable.