9 ms·

Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the outcome.

outside1234 6y ago
You have to admit its on brand - just talk - never getting anything done or passed...
mc32 6y ago
It’s a strange vote. I mean it’s completely bipartisan. And a couple on either side and an independent abstained. Guess there was some good horse trading.
- qroshan 6y ago
  How is it strange? It is completely consistent with "My way or the highway, No Compromise attitude"
- croon 6y ago
  Not that strange. McConnell knows all the votes before allowing a vote on anything. Then he lets any R in sensitive states vote YAY up to <59 votes.
fzeroracer 6y ago
Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.
- filoleg 6y ago
  So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    Can you explain how this is consistent with his political alignment? Because Bernie Sanders (regardless of how you feel about him) has voted consistently against increasing the surveillance state. Hence why his vote wouldn't have mattered, because it would've been a NAY vote and NAY votes don't have any affirmative power.
    - sterlind 6y ago
      The vote is on a plan to REQUIRE a warrant. If he'd voted, he would have voted YEA, to pass this bill requiring a warrant, because he does not want to increase the surveillance state (on that we agree!) It's "yea" for requiring warrants, and "nay" for warrantless surveillance (which is somehow the law of the land now? When did I miss this??)
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        Actually, this is an amendment on a bill to reauthorize expired warrantless surveillance programs, so a yes vote is a vote to make warrants for certain searches a condition for reauthorize broad authority for warrantless dragnet surveillance. I suspect Bernie's abstention is because he thinks reauthorization is equally unacceptable with or without the condition. Procedurally, he could vote yes on the amendment and still vote on the bill, and there's an argument that not doing so is making the perfect the enemy of the good (or at least the barely decent the enemy of the mildly less oppressive of two oppressive options), but it's kind of hard for me to get mad at Sanders for not collaborating in putting lipstick on this particular totalitarian pig of law. One can maybe rationalize the USA Patriot Act in the context of it's time, it's much harder to rationalize the USA Freedom Act’s deliberate after-the-fact authorization of much of the illegal blanket surveillance that went beyond what the original Patriot Act authorized, and it's far harder to rationalize the current reauthorization of the combination, with or without minor tweaks.
      - fzeroracer 6y ago
        See my other response. This makes a lot more sense when you consider this to be a reaction to a separate amendment to the Patriot Act which is meant to explicitly authorize warrentless surveillance of a user's internet history.
- excalibur 6y ago
  Of course he would have voted in favor, why do you assume he would side with the corrupt elite against the general public when his entire platform is the opposite.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    Oh, I see my mistake now. I was getting this confused with the earlier story we had on the McConnell measure which is a separate amendment to allow for the warrentless searching of internet history explicitly. This seems to be another separate amendment in attempt to cut off the McConnell amendment.
dragonwriter 6y ago
I suspect it's because Bernie opposes 215 renewal with or without the amendment.
- dlp211 6y ago
  I doubt this. It makes no sense to not vote for the amendment irrespective of your vote for the larger bill. In other words, Sanders could vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.
  - repsilat 6y ago
    It could make sense to vote against watering down the bill if you think the watered-down version is more likely to pass. This amendment could be the opposite of a poison pill (a "spoonful of sugar"?)
    - loeg 6y ago
      The bill will pass either way. Now it just passes with worse privacy properties for regular Americans.
skuhn 6y ago
Bernie hasn't voted yet since the senate reconvened May 4th. There has been no explanation that I'm aware of for why he isn't voting. https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/votes-missed/116 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/vo...

You have to admit its on brand - just talk - never getting anything done or passed...

mc32 6y ago

It’s a strange vote. I mean it’s completely bipartisan. And a couple on either side and an independent abstained. Guess there was some good horse trading.

qroshan 6y ago
How is it strange? It is completely consistent with "My way or the highway, No Compromise attitude"
croon 6y ago
Not that strange. McConnell knows all the votes before allowing a vote on anything. Then he lets any R in sensitive states vote YAY up to <59 votes.

fzeroracer 6y ago

Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.

filoleg 6y ago
So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  Can you explain how this is consistent with his political alignment? Because Bernie Sanders (regardless of how you feel about him) has voted consistently against increasing the surveillance state. Hence why his vote wouldn't have mattered, because it would've been a NAY vote and NAY votes don't have any affirmative power.
  - sterlind 6y ago
    The vote is on a plan to REQUIRE a warrant. If he'd voted, he would have voted YEA, to pass this bill requiring a warrant, because he does not want to increase the surveillance state (on that we agree!) It's "yea" for requiring warrants, and "nay" for warrantless surveillance (which is somehow the law of the land now? When did I miss this??)
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Actually, this is an amendment on a bill to reauthorize expired warrantless surveillance programs, so a yes vote is a vote to make warrants for certain searches a condition for reauthorize broad authority for warrantless dragnet surveillance. I suspect Bernie's abstention is because he thinks reauthorization is equally unacceptable with or without the condition. Procedurally, he could vote yes on the amendment and still vote on the bill, and there's an argument that not doing so is making the perfect the enemy of the good (or at least the barely decent the enemy of the mildly less oppressive of two oppressive options), but it's kind of hard for me to get mad at Sanders for not collaborating in putting lipstick on this particular totalitarian pig of law. One can maybe rationalize the USA Patriot Act in the context of it's time, it's much harder to rationalize the USA Freedom Act’s deliberate after-the-fact authorization of much of the illegal blanket surveillance that went beyond what the original Patriot Act authorized, and it's far harder to rationalize the current reauthorization of the combination, with or without minor tweaks.
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      See my other response. This makes a lot more sense when you consider this to be a reaction to a separate amendment to the Patriot Act which is meant to explicitly authorize warrentless surveillance of a user's internet history.
excalibur 6y ago
Of course he would have voted in favor, why do you assume he would side with the corrupt elite against the general public when his entire platform is the opposite.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  Oh, I see my mistake now. I was getting this confused with the earlier story we had on the McConnell measure which is a separate amendment to allow for the warrentless searching of internet history explicitly. This seems to be another separate amendment in attempt to cut off the McConnell amendment.

dragonwriter 6y ago

I suspect it's because Bernie opposes 215 renewal with or without the amendment.

dlp211 6y ago
I doubt this. It makes no sense to not vote for the amendment irrespective of your vote for the larger bill. In other words, Sanders could vote yes on the amendment and no on the bill.
- repsilat 6y ago
  It could make sense to vote against watering down the bill if you think the watered-down version is more likely to pass. This amendment could be the opposite of a poison pill (a "spoonful of sugar"?)
  - loeg 6y ago
    The bill will pass either way. Now it just passes with worse privacy properties for regular Americans.

skuhn 6y ago

Bernie hasn't voted yet since the senate reconvened May 4th. There has been no explanation that I'm aware of for why he isn't voting. https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/votes-missed/116 https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033/vo...