Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
255 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why is Bernie Sanders voting to NOT put sanctions on Russia? (Original Post) Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 OP
he said he was worried it would scuttle the iran deal..nt. drray23 Jul 2017 #1
I don't agree with more sanctions on Iran, that is one more way to go after anything Obama Motley13 Jul 2017 #45
And yet no Democrat thought that. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #80
Only two of them opposed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and there were more of them then Tom Rinaldo Jul 2017 #103
Bernie also voted against the war in Iraq. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #104
can't imagine that happened here tho' JNelson6563 Jul 2017 #105
No back then he was a DU darling. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #107
I trust Bernie... there's a reason he's so popular. InAbLuEsTaTe Jul 2017 #253
Explain how these sanctions impact the nuclear deal? VermontKevin Jul 2017 #110
There have been about 8 DU OP's this month expressing "surprise" about Sanders stance Tom Rinaldo Jul 2017 #127
Well, you didn't answer the question. Tell me how these specific sanctions VermontKevin Jul 2017 #134
Trust who you want. I never said "undo". They endanger them to some extent. Tom Rinaldo Jul 2017 #136
"to some extent" is pretty vague. I have to go with the judgment of the Democrats on this one. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #137
Nicely done! beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #155
Agree! PufPuf23 Jul 2017 #224
I just hope their pilot light doesn't go out, all that gas just needs one spark and... beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #225
I do find the situation disconcerting. PufPuf23 Jul 2017 #226
I'm not worried, most people can recognize fake news. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #229
Well I'm surprised. I don't have time to be on this site 24/7. I wondered who voted against it. kerry-is-my-prez Jul 2017 #180
Of course not... Tom Rinaldo Jul 2017 #195
And if they keep reading it gets quite entertaining. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #203
Exactly left-of-center2012 Jul 2017 #212
They (Democrats) did not vote for Gulf of Tonkin.... for God sakes anyone involved is long dead. Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #237
Well, obviously the majority is always right, eh? X_Digger Jul 2017 #242
Well, if you want to go with the idea that every Democrat in the Senate is wrong, VermontKevin Jul 2017 #243
Is that similar to saying GaryCnf Jul 2017 #244
I don't trust the Repubs. But I do trust the Democrats. Don't you? VermontKevin Jul 2017 #246
I trust that GaryCnf Jul 2017 #248
Oh lordy, you think this vote is a purity test for Sanders? VermontKevin Jul 2017 #252
I think you have responded GaryCnf Jul 2017 #254
Argument from authority, eh? Novel approach, no points. n/t X_Digger Jul 2017 #245
I don't doubt the authority of the Democrats. Do you? VermontKevin Jul 2017 #247
We're always right, eh? Logic isn't your strong suit is it? n/t X_Digger Jul 2017 #249
We're right on this. If the only objection is that Bernie didn't go along, then I'd say your appeal VermontKevin Jul 2017 #251
John Kerry agreed but what does he know? He's only the former SOS. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #94
thats iran kerry is talking about. drray23 Jul 2017 #99
Iran sanctions are included in the bill. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #101
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the sanctions affect the Iran deal. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #111
Good question. So far, it's whataboutism R B Garr Jul 2017 #124
Yes. I would like some explanation as to how the sanctions affect the Iran deal. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #125
+1 onetexan Jul 2017 #130
See #127 above. n/t Tom Rinaldo Jul 2017 #133
what just passed are sanctions on russia, iran, and north korea left-of-center2012 Jul 2017 #213
It has something to do with Iran, I think. MineralMan Jul 2017 #2
I wish he'd explain left-of-center2012 Jul 2017 #215
A Google search would have answered your question. SamKnause Jul 2017 #3
Yes left-of-center2012 Jul 2017 #217
Sanders Statement on Iran and Russia Sanctions leftstreet Jul 2017 #4
That was in June oberliner Jul 2017 #10
No change then n/t leftstreet Jul 2017 #37
Pretty much oberliner Jul 2017 #66
He's protecting Obama's Iran deal, as all Democrats should. The pukes want it derailed. Autumn Jul 2017 #5
So 48 Democratic Senators, ALL of them in fact, are for blowing up Obama's Iran Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #14
I would suggest that the 48 are buying the argument that the Iran sanctions will NOT blow up the karynnj Jul 2017 #46
I agree grantcart Jul 2017 #106
The answer is in junior-high-school civics. Jim Lane Jul 2017 #63
Dear Eliot saidsimplesimon Jul 2017 #153
Camp is very entertaining, left-of-center2012 Jul 2017 #219
The trump administration has re-certified the Iran deal twice now, as they are required to do.... George II Jul 2017 #30
So, you know more than John Kerry -- who knew? karynnj Jul 2017 #48
I don't agree. Stopping the Russians is more important. Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #238
You don't have to agree. I agree with John Kerry and trust nothing that Trump and his bunch want Autumn Jul 2017 #241
Because they come with stupid sanctions on Iran. Voltaire2 Jul 2017 #6
They aren't stupid oberliner Jul 2017 #15
Because of AIPAC and not because the sanctions are needed. alarimer Jul 2017 #50
BS oberliner Jul 2017 #65
It's a safe place for Sanders to differentiate himself from Democrats. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #7
OR GaryCnf Jul 2017 #11
I don't believe that for a second. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #16
Of course you don't n/t GaryCnf Jul 2017 #20
No one would believe that democrats in both houses... Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #27
Could they GaryCnf Jul 2017 #100
Why did John Kerry publically speak against the added sanctions at this point in time karynnj Jul 2017 #51
Kerry isn't on the inside. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #53
Kerry was Secretary of State until January 20, 2017 and NO Democrat is really on the inside now karynnj Jul 2017 #59
I'm aware of the position Kerry held. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #64
You essentially implied that he would not understand the potential impact of sanctions on Iran karynnj Jul 2017 #71
"Bernie's vote was a protest vote" Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #72
and what do YOU think he is protesting? nt karynnj Jul 2017 #75
It was in the start to this conversation. Nt Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #76
It made no sense then and it makes no sense now karynnj Jul 2017 #81
I disagree. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #84
Have you ever met Bernie? I have, though I would not say I know him, but I know many who do karynnj Jul 2017 #89
There is a lot out there that goes against what you are saying. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #96
My definition of a phony politician is one who votes for political or strategic effect, not on their karynnj Jul 2017 #102
Do you think Obama's Iran deal should be done away with and the republican sanctions are better? Autumn Jul 2017 #19
Loaded question with no back-up of the assertion being made. Nt Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #29
Republican will use sanctions to get Iran to back out of the deal. That's my opinion. Autumn Jul 2017 #36
I don't see anyone here or in the party who are trusting Trump. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #41
Non-sequitor. I said I trust nothing Trump and the pukes do. The word I refers to me. Autumn Jul 2017 #43
It clearly insinuating others did. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #44
The word I insinuates myself. Me. There's not a lot of point in you attempting to argue I Autumn Jul 2017 #73
I don't get the aggression. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #74
I wasn't arguing. I was posting my opinion, which you seem to have a problem with. Autumn Jul 2017 #78
I love the rofl smilie!!!! Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #82
Yeah I remembered you would. eom Autumn Jul 2017 #90
Thank you for thinking of me. Nt Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #91
People keep saying that, but the Iran deal is not in jeopardy and will not be "done away with".... George II Jul 2017 #31
Weird, because we know the Russians rigged R B Garr Jul 2017 #34
If that is your answer, then you are missing the point virtualobserver Jul 2017 #55
I don't agree. So if I'm missing the point, just what is the point? George II Jul 2017 #58
The point is that Iran could back out of the deal. virtualobserver Jul 2017 #122
But Isn't That Somewhat Hypocritical? Me. Jul 2017 #35
It's politics. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #39
But Honestly, I thought That Sort Of Thing Me. Jul 2017 #49
I like Sanders. Weekend Warrior Jul 2017 #52
Agreements Are Nice Me. Jul 2017 #54
You don't get to be senator without being good st that sort of thing Nevernose Jul 2017 #60
I was wondering the same thing Gothmog Jul 2017 #8
I have to give you points for persistence GaryCnf Jul 2017 #9
I know, his reason has been posted time and agin. I think any Dem should want Obamas' Iran deal Autumn Jul 2017 #13
Yet you are saying ALL democratic senators want to blow up Obama deal, since Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #17
No I am not saying that. I said any Dem should want to support Obama's Iran deal over anything Autumn Jul 2017 #23
Voting for something isn't the same as wanting a thing metalbot Jul 2017 #129
+1 nt riderinthestorm Jul 2017 #21
I'll take Elizabeth Warren's judgment over Sanders. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #83
I'll trust both. It doesn't have to be one or the other. eom Autumn Jul 2017 #85
On Russia, it does. I take the judgment of the female, Democratic Senator, over VermontKevin Jul 2017 #87
What I won't do is trust anything or any bill the republicans put up or want a yes vote on. Autumn Jul 2017 #88
Wait, what? What does gender have to do with this issue? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #95
I respect Kerry, he was my Senator. I'm interested in any statement he made about the actual bill seaglass Jul 2017 #131
Nice strawman but I'm not interested in knocking it down today. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #151
I will take Elizabeth Warren over Sanders, every time. It's great if Bernie VermontKevin Jul 2017 #108
I don't consider gender to be an indicator of intelligence, I find both to be intellegent. eom Autumn Jul 2017 #112
What is "eom" and is there a spellcheck? VermontKevin Jul 2017 #113
end of message. Yeah there is one but I didn't use it so I may have misspelled something Autumn Jul 2017 #114
Indeed. Why would anyone think that gender is related to intelligence? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #115
Some people seem to think that. I don't care if they disagree. I know that both will always Autumn Jul 2017 #116
It's so 19th century. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #117
Oh yeah, it's so easy to become one Their gender has nothing to do with their intelligence or Autumn Jul 2017 #119
A million times since July 16th? R B Garr Jul 2017 #18
Do you think it was more? GaryCnf Jul 2017 #22
More what? R B Garr Jul 2017 #26
The Iran part cant be true otherwise the ENTIRE democratic party wouldnt Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #28
+1, good points, it doesn't add up. nt R B Garr Jul 2017 #32
It seems like you're really straining in this post dragonlady Jul 2017 #38
Here's a poll. Take your pick Autumn Jul 2017 #118
Did someone say PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS ? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #120
Why yes, PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS did come into play. Autumn Jul 2017 #121
Your logic makes no sense Kentonio Jul 2017 #139
Post removed Post removed Jul 2017 #165
... demmiblue Jul 2017 #12
Becase it contains increased sanctions on Iran. haveahart Jul 2017 #24
This is flamebait horseshit. rateyes Jul 2017 #25
I wish Trump would tweet about cocks or something leftstreet Jul 2017 #42
For real! rateyes Jul 2017 #47
I think you nailed it. nt LostOne4Ever Jul 2017 #69
I am so tired of this shit. rateyes Jul 2017 #70
Because He Honeymooned In Russia? Me. Jul 2017 #33
He went to Russia representing the town he was mayor of at a sister city karynnj Jul 2017 #56
This Was Meant As A Jest Me. Jul 2017 #77
Bernie has NEVER been friendly to Putin. Had to slip that in? Greybnk48 Jul 2017 #40
+1000 kacekwl Jul 2017 #57
It was a protest vote of some kind. He didn't like something MineralMan Jul 2017 #61
Rand Paul also opposes the Iran sanctions oberliner Jul 2017 #67
OK. It still doesn't make any difference. MineralMan Jul 2017 #68
No they actually didn't Alittleliberal Jul 2017 #144
Yes, they did oberliner Jul 2017 #145
Rand also didn't support the bill explicitly because of the Russia sanctions NT Alittleliberal Jul 2017 #146
I have been so disappointed in Sanders kimbutgar Jul 2017 #62
Why are you disappointed that Bernie supports Obama's Iran deal? Kentonio Jul 2017 #135
If the defense of Bernie on this site is any indication, say goodbye to the House and senate Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #143
You say he's "seemingly friendly" to Putin - why does that seem so to you? David__77 Jul 2017 #79
When you vote against sanctions on Putin for his behavior then yeah, VermontKevin Jul 2017 #86
To you. David__77 Jul 2017 #93
Bills are bundled all the time. But I think that Bernie is wrong on this issue. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #109
How would they not? Kentonio Jul 2017 #138
You are assuming a lot of feelings. Do you have any proof that the people targeted in these VermontKevin Jul 2017 #140
I'm not assuming anything Kentonio Jul 2017 #141
Well, when you breach a UN Security Council resolution, there's going to be a response. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #142
The Republicans just don't want any opening up of relations with Iran Kentonio Jul 2017 #236
Not really since he voted for the bill before the Republicans added the Iran sanctions. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #97
Certainly won't help him in his run for president. MrsCoffee Jul 2017 #92
Not this again. I read Bernie has a hammer and sickle tattoo on his ass! beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #98
Here's an interesting question GaryCnf Jul 2017 #123
Trump was going to sanction Iran anyway Tavarious Jackson Jul 2017 #128
That makes even more problematic GaryCnf Jul 2017 #132
I'm not into loyalty or purity test unless... Tavarious Jackson Jul 2017 #188
Exactly, so that makes his vote even more curious. R B Garr Jul 2017 #162
Because the New McCarthyism is total bull shit autorank Jul 2017 #126
Why is he one of the few who voted against the Magnitsky act? continentalop2 Jul 2017 #147
WAIT, WHAT THE FUCK, he did? Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #148
Nay Brother Buzz Jul 2017 #152
You are wrong Eliot Rosewater Jul 2017 #156
Maxine Waters voted nay as well. Are you saying she's "friendly" with Putin too? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #159
She is for them now after the Russians attacked our elections. Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #240
He you go H.R 6156 Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #239
Wow, just looked that up. Good reminder. R B Garr Jul 2017 #149
Do you mean like GaryCnf Jul 2017 #154
WAIT, WHAT THE FUCK, Carl Levin and Maxine Waters did too? And Barbara Lee? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #157
Shocking isn't it? GaryCnf Jul 2017 #160
Whatever his "reasons" may be, I don't like it. NurseJackie Jul 2017 #150
That's nice. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #158
:-D NurseJackie Jul 2017 #161
Lockheed MArtin is a big employer in VT and sanctions related to missiles aren't VermontKevin Jul 2017 #163
So using your 'logic' he should have joined his colleagues and voted for the Iraq war. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #166
You previously accused me of something strange and had a post hidden. Please disengage. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #167
Didn't you just imply the senator was beholden to the defense industry? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #169
'Please disengage' melman Jul 2017 #192
... beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #199
I've never heard of Lockheed Martin being a major employer in Vermont. tammywammy Jul 2017 #170
The aerospace industry does employ Vermonters but it's not the state's largest industry. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #171
Here's two lists I found. tammywammy Jul 2017 #172
I don't know where that poster got the idea that LM is a "big employer" in Vermont. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #174
Here you go: VermontKevin Jul 2017 #173
F-35s are going to be stationed with the Vermont National Guard in Burlington. tammywammy Jul 2017 #175
Bernie himself said it was hundreds of jobs: VermontKevin Jul 2017 #178
Sandia tests solar panels in Vermont, it has nothing to do with defense contracts. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #183
Let's take a step back tammywammy Jul 2017 #185
I'm not upset with Sanders for the f-35. It's hundreds of jobs, like he said. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #187
Why do you keep saying Lockheed Martin is a big employer in Vermont? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #189
I'm not forgetting anything. tammywammy Jul 2017 #204
Article title: Lockheed taking cautious look at Iran helicopter market. R B Garr Jul 2017 #206
Yes, it's pretty easy to see that Sandia is a subsidiary of Lockheed. R B Garr Jul 2017 #190
Between the Sandia lab and the f-35, Lockheed is a formidable presence in VT. Iran's markets were VermontKevin Jul 2017 #191
Yes, and that is obviously recognized by Sanders. It's just a strange diversion to pretend R B Garr Jul 2017 #193
Every politician brings home the bacon. That's established politics. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #196
Yes, every politician wants their state to be competitive. R B Garr Jul 2017 #202
Bingo! Great link! Follow the money. R B Garr Jul 2017 #198
Neither of those articles prove your claim about Lockheed Martin. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #176
If that's the reason and the motivation... it's VERY disappointing. NurseJackie Jul 2017 #179
Well, as I noted below, Bernie promised hundreds of Vermont jobs from the f-35 VermontKevin Jul 2017 #182
Thanks for the links. NurseJackie Jul 2017 #184
Of course. I essentially agree with Sanders. The f-35 had to be built somewhere. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #194
Wait, what? Vermonters don't build F-35s. Where are you getting this information? beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #197
Vermont doesn't build the F-35 tammywammy Jul 2017 #201
But Sanders promised hundreds of jobs with the Lockheed research center and the F35 VermontKevin Jul 2017 #205
Please read my post 185 tammywammy Jul 2017 #209
I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. I think Sanders securing the f-35, Sandia, and Lockheed VermontKevin Jul 2017 #211
"Learning to love Sandia" That's a subtitle of an article about the Sandia labs R B Garr Jul 2017 #216
I'm old enough to get the Dr. Strangelove reference VermontKevin Jul 2017 #218
lol..... R B Garr Jul 2017 #223
I lulz'd KG Jul 2017 #164
Don't laugh, they're trying so hard to convince us. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #177
Sanders is consistently friendly to dictators... Expecting Rain Jul 2017 #168
I have no words to express how I feel about that. NurseJackie Jul 2017 #181
He called Chavez a "dead communist dictator" last year. VermontKevin Jul 2017 #186
That's new information for me... I hadn't heard that. NurseJackie Jul 2017 #200
I honestly have no clue Warpy Jul 2017 #207
Actually he explained and SURPRISE! It has nothing to do with being "friendly" to Putin. beam me up scottie Jul 2017 #210
Thanks. I hadn't read his reasoning. It's sound. Warpy Jul 2017 #221
It was a lopsided vote, 98-2 in the Senate. It's not "wild speculation" to R B Garr Jul 2017 #222
Yeah, that's it GaryCnf Jul 2017 #228
419 to 3, a bipartisan show against Trump R B Garr Jul 2017 #230
The question is GaryCnf Jul 2017 #231
Welcome to DU.... R B Garr Jul 2017 #232
Thank you. GaryCnf Jul 2017 #233
I think you are delusional if you actually believe Sanders is "friendly" to Putin. PufPuf23 Jul 2017 #208
Bernie is not against samctions on Russia louis c Jul 2017 #214
Sanders Statement on New Iran, North Korea, Russia Sanctions OKIsItJustMe Jul 2017 #220
Excellent research, thank you! Rhiannon12866 Jul 2017 #234
Maybe it has something to do with the solar eclipse? aidbo Jul 2017 #227
You have no reason to imply that he's friendly to Putin. Ken Burch Jul 2017 #235
Lol, hilarious and wrong. Your insinuations make the baby Jesus cry Arazi Jul 2017 #250
K&R stonecutter357 Aug 2017 #255

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
103. Only two of them opposed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and there were more of them then
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 05:15 PM
Jul 2017

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)
104. Bernie also voted against the war in Iraq.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 05:17 PM
Jul 2017

I remember at the time his detractors also used that to question his loyalty to America.

JNelson6563

(28,151 posts)
105. can't imagine that happened here tho'
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 05:24 PM
Jul 2017

Levin, Byrd, all those fighting against Iraq war were rather heroes here.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
107. No back then he was a DU darling.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 05:28 PM
Jul 2017

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 Obama’s 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.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
127. There have been about 8 DU OP's this month expressing "surprise" about Sanders stance
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:18 AM
Jul 2017

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, that’s 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)
134. Well, you didn't answer the question. Tell me how these specific sanctions
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 09:21 AM
Jul 2017

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)
136. Trust who you want. I never said "undo". They endanger them to some extent.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 10:01 AM
Jul 2017

To what extent is a matter of debate, as is the purpose of threads such as this.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
155. Nicely done!
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 01:36 PM
Jul 2017

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.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
229. I'm not worried, most people can recognize fake news.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 07:46 PM
Jul 2017

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)
180. Well I'm surprised. I don't have time to be on this site 24/7. I wondered who voted against it.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:08 PM
Jul 2017

Am I wrong for being surprised?? First I've heard of it....

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
195. Of course not...
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:41 PM
Jul 2017

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)
203. And if they keep reading it gets quite entertaining.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:53 PM
Jul 2017

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)
212. Exactly
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:18 PM
Jul 2017

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

(68,347 posts)
237. They (Democrats) did not vote for Gulf of Tonkin.... for God sakes anyone involved is long dead.
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 06:47 AM
Jul 2017

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

 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
243. Well, if you want to go with the idea that every Democrat in the Senate is wrong,
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 01:30 PM
Jul 2017

including Franken and Warren, Udall, and Wyden, okay.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
244. Is that similar to saying
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 03:51 PM
Jul 2017

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.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
248. I trust that
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 08:55 PM
Jul 2017

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)
251. We're right on this. If the only objection is that Bernie didn't go along, then I'd say your appeal
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 11:48 PM
Jul 2017

to authority is considerably closer than mine.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
94. John Kerry agreed but what does he know? He's only the former SOS.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:44 PM
Jul 2017
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, that’s 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


 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
111. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how the sanctions affect the Iran deal.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 06:48 PM
Jul 2017

That is the Senator's reasoning, still waiting for it.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
2. It has something to do with Iran, I think.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:37 PM
Jul 2017

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.

SamKnause

(13,037 posts)
3. A Google search would have answered your question.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:38 PM
Jul 2017

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.

leftstreet

(36,076 posts)
4. Sanders Statement on Iran and Russia Sanctions
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:39 PM
Jul 2017

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)
66. Pretty much
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:32 PM
Jul 2017

Though this bill had North Korea added into the mix, so it was not exactly the same as the other bill.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,096 posts)
14. So 48 Democratic Senators, ALL of them in fact, are for blowing up Obama's Iran
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:52 PM
Jul 2017

Deal?

One or the other, which is it?

Logic dictates BULLSHIT.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
46. I would suggest that the 48 are buying the argument that the Iran sanctions will NOT blow up the
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:42 PM
Jul 2017

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)
106. I agree
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 05:27 PM
Jul 2017

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)
63. The answer is in junior-high-school civics.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:28 PM
Jul 2017

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.

George II

(67,782 posts)
30. The trump administration has re-certified the Iran deal twice now, as they are required to do....
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:10 PM
Jul 2017

.....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

(59,474 posts)
48. So, you know more than John Kerry -- who knew?
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:52 PM
Jul 2017

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

(68,347 posts)
238. I don't agree. Stopping the Russians is more important.
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 06:50 AM
Jul 2017

And Iran give a great deal of money to Hezbollah.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
241. You don't have to agree. I agree with John Kerry and trust nothing that Trump and his bunch want
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 09:27 AM
Jul 2017

and I will never trust anything they put forward in regard to any foreign policy or any matters of importance.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
50. Because of AIPAC and not because the sanctions are needed.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:53 PM
Jul 2017

But AIPAC is a powerful lobby and most Dems will not oppose them in anything.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
65. BS
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:31 PM
Jul 2017

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)
7. It's a safe place for Sanders to differentiate himself from Democrats.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:46 PM
Jul 2017

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.

 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
16. I don't believe that for a second.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:53 PM
Jul 2017

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.

 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
27. No one would believe that democrats in both houses...
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:05 PM
Jul 2017

Voted to distance themselves from Obama. It's not believable.

 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
100. Could they
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:51 PM
Jul 2017

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

(59,474 posts)
51. Why did John Kerry publically speak against the added sanctions at this point in time
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:56 PM
Jul 2017

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)
53. Kerry isn't on the inside.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:00 PM
Jul 2017

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

(59,474 posts)
59. Kerry was Secretary of State until January 20, 2017 and NO Democrat is really on the inside now
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:21 PM
Jul 2017

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)
64. I'm aware of the position Kerry held.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:31 PM
Jul 2017

He also earned his respect from the world community. I never insinuated he was or should be a hermit.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
71. You essentially implied that he would not understand the potential impact of sanctions on Iran
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:53 PM
Jul 2017

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)
72. "Bernie's vote was a protest vote"
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:59 PM
Jul 2017

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

(59,474 posts)
81. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:20 PM
Jul 2017

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)
84. I disagree.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:25 PM
Jul 2017

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

(59,474 posts)
89. Have you ever met Bernie? I have, though I would not say I know him, but I know many who do
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:35 PM
Jul 2017

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)
96. There is a lot out there that goes against what you are saying.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:46 PM
Jul 2017

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

(59,474 posts)
102. My definition of a phony politician is one who votes for political or strategic effect, not on their
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:54 PM
Jul 2017

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

(44,743 posts)
19. Do you think Obama's Iran deal should be done away with and the republican sanctions are better?
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:54 PM
Jul 2017

I wouldn't support anything they came up with regarding Iran over Obama's deal.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
36. Republican will use sanctions to get Iran to back out of the deal. That's my opinion.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:23 PM
Jul 2017

I trust nothing Trump and his group will do.

 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
41. I don't see anyone here or in the party who are trusting Trump.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:30 PM
Jul 2017

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

(44,743 posts)
43. Non-sequitor. I said I trust nothing Trump and the pukes do. The word I refers to me.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:35 PM
Jul 2017

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)
44. It clearly insinuating others did.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:38 PM
Jul 2017

I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise. Without that insinuation there was zero point for it.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
73. The word I insinuates myself. Me. There's not a lot of point in you attempting to argue I
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:00 PM
Jul 2017

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)
74. I don't get the aggression.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:05 PM
Jul 2017

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

(44,743 posts)
78. I wasn't arguing. I was posting my opinion, which you seem to have a problem with.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:16 PM
Jul 2017

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.

George II

(67,782 posts)
31. People keep saying that, but the Iran deal is not in jeopardy and will not be "done away with"....
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:16 PM
Jul 2017

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

(16,919 posts)
34. Weird, because we know the Russians rigged
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:18 PM
Jul 2017

our election, and the GOP doesn't care because it benefitted them.

 

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)
122. The point is that Iran could back out of the deal.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 07:34 PM
Jul 2017

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.

 

Weekend Warrior

(1,301 posts)
39. It's politics.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:24 PM
Jul 2017

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.

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
60. You don't get to be senator without being good st that sort of thing
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:25 PM
Jul 2017

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.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
13. I know, his reason has been posted time and agin. I think any Dem should want Obamas' Iran deal
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:50 PM
Jul 2017

to remain. But I guess any reason will do. I would't trust anything the pukes came up with.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,096 posts)
17. Yet you are saying ALL democratic senators want to blow up Obama deal, since
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:53 PM
Jul 2017

we know that is IMPOSSIBLE, another reason is in fact in existence here.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
23. No I am not saying that. I said any Dem should want to support Obama's Iran deal over anything
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 01:59 PM
Jul 2017

that Trump and the pukes would come up with. Please point out where I said

ALL democratic senators want to blow up Obama deal

Let me make it easy for you here is my post,


13. I know, his reason has been posted time and agin. I think any Dem should want Obamas' Iran deal

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)
129. Voting for something isn't the same as wanting a thing
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:46 AM
Jul 2017

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.

 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
87. On Russia, it does. I take the judgment of the female, Democratic Senator, over
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:27 PM
Jul 2017

the male Independent.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
88. What I won't do is trust anything or any bill the republicans put up or want a yes vote on.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:35 PM
Jul 2017

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)
95. Wait, what? What does gender have to do with this issue?
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:46 PM
Jul 2017

I'll take SOS John Kerry's judgement and I'm female.

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, that’s 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

(8,170 posts)
131. I respect Kerry, he was my Senator. I'm interested in any statement he made about the actual bill
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 07:32 AM
Jul 2017

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)
151. Nice strawman but I'm not interested in knocking it down today.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 01:26 PM
Jul 2017

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)
108. I will take Elizabeth Warren over Sanders, every time. It's great if Bernie
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 06:45 PM
Jul 2017

agrees with her, but I find her to be smarter.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
114. end of message. Yeah there is one but I didn't use it so I may have misspelled something
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 06:59 PM
Jul 2017

Shit happens ya know. I'm on my phone and I didn't use the stylus.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
115. Indeed. Why would anyone think that gender is related to intelligence?
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 07:01 PM
Jul 2017

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

(44,743 posts)
116. Some people seem to think that. I don't care if they disagree. I know that both will always
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 07:06 PM
Jul 2017

put the needs of the American people first.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
117. It's so 19th century.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 07:09 PM
Jul 2017

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

(44,743 posts)
119. Oh yeah, it's so easy to become one Their gender has nothing to do with their intelligence or
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 07:19 PM
Jul 2017

their desire to stand and vote for what is right.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,096 posts)
28. The Iran part cant be true otherwise the ENTIRE democratic party wouldnt
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:07 PM
Jul 2017

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

dragonlady

(3,577 posts)
38. It seems like you're really straining in this post
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:24 PM
Jul 2017

Oh, and when you start your poll, put me down as a yes on trusting.

Autumn

(44,743 posts)
121. Why yes, PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS did come into play.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 07:28 PM
Jul 2017

But only the precious ones, not the icky ones, we will leave those to Trump and his republicans.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
139. Your logic makes no sense
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 10:07 AM
Jul 2017

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)

 

haveahart

(905 posts)
24. Becase it contains increased sanctions on Iran.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 02:01 PM
Jul 2017

e doesn't want to do that while they are in compliance with the nuke agreement.

karynnj

(59,474 posts)
56. He went to Russia representing the town he was mayor of at a sister city
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:04 PM
Jul 2017

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)
77. This Was Meant As A Jest
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:15 PM
Jul 2017

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.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
61. It was a protest vote of some kind. He didn't like something
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:26 PM
Jul 2017

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.

MineralMan

(146,189 posts)
68. OK. It still doesn't make any difference.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:34 PM
Jul 2017

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)
144. No they actually didn't
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 12:13 PM
Jul 2017

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)
145. Yes, they did
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 12:35 PM
Jul 2017

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 Trump’s comments that he won’t recertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement I worry new sanctions could endanger it"

kimbutgar

(20,871 posts)
62. I have been so disappointed in Sanders
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 03:28 PM
Jul 2017

I threw away my Bernie t-shirt a couple of weeks ago. Didn't even want to keep it as a rag.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,096 posts)
143. If the defense of Bernie on this site is any indication, say goodbye to the House and senate
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 11:43 AM
Jul 2017

for another generation.

David__77

(23,212 posts)
79. You say he's "seemingly friendly" to Putin - why does that seem so to you?
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:17 PM
Jul 2017

I have no information that Sanders "seem friendly" to Putin.

David__77

(23,212 posts)
93. To you.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:41 PM
Jul 2017

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)
109. Bills are bundled all the time. But I think that Bernie is wrong on this issue.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 06:47 PM
Jul 2017

Poorly briefed.

Maybe you can explain exactly how these sanctions would impact the nuclear deal?

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
138. How would they not?
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 10:02 AM
Jul 2017

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)
140. You are assuming a lot of feelings. Do you have any proof that the people targeted in these
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 10:08 AM
Jul 2017

sanctions have the sort of power you think they do?

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
141. I'm not assuming anything
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 10:16 AM
Jul 2017

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)
142. Well, when you breach a UN Security Council resolution, there's going to be a response.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 10:30 AM
Jul 2017

Maybe this is a way of showing the hardliners that violation of a UN resolution will not go unpunished.

 

Kentonio

(4,377 posts)
236. The Republicans just don't want any opening up of relations with Iran
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 05:47 AM
Jul 2017

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)
97. Not really since he voted for the bill before the Republicans added the Iran sanctions.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:49 PM
Jul 2017

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)
92. Certainly won't help him in his run for president.
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:41 PM
Jul 2017

Well not as far as the American public's opinion goes anyway.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
98. Not this again. I read Bernie has a hammer and sickle tattoo on his ass!
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 04:51 PM
Jul 2017

And BOXES IN HIS GARAGE! And then there was the time he joined a COMMIE COMMUNE IN ISRAEL!



 

GaryCnf

(1,399 posts)
123. Here's an interesting question
Fri Jul 28, 2017, 10:43 PM
Jul 2017

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)
128. Trump was going to sanction Iran anyway
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:17 AM
Jul 2017

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)
132. That makes even more problematic
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 07:34 AM
Jul 2017

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)
188. I'm not into loyalty or purity test unless...
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:20 PM
Jul 2017

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

(16,919 posts)
162. Exactly, so that makes his vote even more curious.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 02:32 PM
Jul 2017

Sanctions against Russia for rigging our election is only common sense.

autorank

(29,456 posts)
126. Because the New McCarthyism is total bull shit
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 02:11 AM
Jul 2017

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.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
159. Maxine Waters voted nay as well. Are you saying she's "friendly" with Putin too?
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 01:45 PM
Jul 2017




Looks like you were wrong, people on DU trust Bernie after all.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
157. WAIT, WHAT THE FUCK, Carl Levin and Maxine Waters did too? And Barbara Lee?
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 01:44 PM
Jul 2017

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!

 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
163. Lockheed MArtin is a big employer in VT and sanctions related to missiles aren't
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 02:50 PM
Jul 2017

good for arms makers.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
166. So using your 'logic' he should have joined his colleagues and voted for the Iraq war.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:20 PM
Jul 2017

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?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
169. Didn't you just imply the senator was beholden to the defense industry?
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:32 PM
Jul 2017
Lockheed MArtin is a big employer in VT and sanctions related to missiles aren't good for arms makers.


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?

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
170. I've never heard of Lockheed Martin being a major employer in Vermont.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:35 PM
Jul 2017

I Googled and on the lists of largest employers I saw none listed Lockheed Martin or Sandia.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
171. The aerospace industry does employ Vermonters but it's not the state's largest industry.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:39 PM
Jul 2017

That would be dairy farms so perhaps Bernie is in bed with Big Moo™?



beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
174. I don't know where that poster got the idea that LM is a "big employer" in Vermont.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:49 PM
Jul 2017

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)
173. Here you go:
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:45 PM
Jul 2017
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html


He also decried the project’s 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 Guard’s 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)
175. F-35s are going to be stationed with the Vermont National Guard in Burlington.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:50 PM
Jul 2017

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)
178. Bernie himself said it was hundreds of jobs:
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:00 PM
Jul 2017

Well you may think it doesn’t 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)
183. Sandia tests solar panels in Vermont, it has nothing to do with defense contracts.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:12 PM
Jul 2017
Sanders and Sandia Announce New $15 Million Energy Lab at University of Vermont
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


U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) joined representatives of Sandia, IBM, and the DOE in early November to announce the launch of the Vermont Photovoltaic Regional Test Center (RTC). The RTC will enable research on integrating solar panels into the statewide smart grid and help reduce the cost of solar power. The Vermont RTC is one of five such facilities in the U.S. (including another at Sandia’s NSTTF) that will provide critical performance data on photovoltaic (PV) systems, including determining the effectiveness of operating in a climate with harsh winters, significant precipitation, and dramatic weather changes.

“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)
185. Let's take a step back
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:15 PM
Jul 2017

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

She said that the two largest aerospace companies in Vermont are GE Aviation and UTC Aerospace Systems, and she also noted the presence of another 30 small to mid-sized companies. Altogether, she estimated that this accounts for more than 2,000 jobs, which the F-35 program is positioned to complement.

"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)
187. I'm not upset with Sanders for the f-35. It's hundreds of jobs, like he said.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:20 PM
Jul 2017

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)
189. Why do you keep saying Lockheed Martin is a big employer in Vermont?
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:27 PM
Jul 2017

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)
204. I'm not forgetting anything.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:56 PM
Jul 2017

Post 170

170. I've never heard of Lockheed Martin being a major employer in Vermont.

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

(16,919 posts)
206. Article title: Lockheed taking cautious look at Iran helicopter market.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:00 PM
Jul 2017

Great find! This could explain a lot about the Nay vote.

R B Garr

(16,919 posts)
193. Yes, and that is obviously recognized by Sanders. It's just a strange diversion to pretend
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:38 PM
Jul 2017

otherwise. He speaks openly about the job opportunities they represent to his state.

 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
196. Every politician brings home the bacon. That's established politics.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:43 PM
Jul 2017

There's a reason Bernie is popular and stands a great chance at re-election.

R B Garr

(16,919 posts)
202. Yes, every politician wants their state to be competitive.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:51 PM
Jul 2017

Even Senators from New York and all over.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
176. Neither of those articles prove your claim about Lockheed Martin.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:55 PM
Jul 2017

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?

 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
182. Well, as I noted below, Bernie promised hundreds of Vermont jobs from the f-35
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:11 PM
Jul 2017


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
 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
194. Of course. I essentially agree with Sanders. The f-35 had to be built somewhere.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:39 PM
Jul 2017

Why not Vermont?



Sen. Sanders continues: “That’s 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? You’re 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, I’d rather it come to Vermont than to South Carolina. And that’s what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. That’s it.”


http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-lockheed-martin-f-35-jets-vermont

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
201. Vermont doesn't build the F-35
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 04:50 PM
Jul 2017

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)
205. But Sanders promised hundreds of jobs with the Lockheed research center and the F35
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:00 PM
Jul 2017

I don't disagree with his decisions, either getting the Lockheed sub Sandia

The Vermont senator persuaded Lockheed Martin to place a research center in Burlington, according to Newsweek, and managed to get 18 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets stationed at the city’s airport for the Vermont National Guard.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-loves-this-dollar1-trillion-war-machine



Sen. Sanders continues: “That’s 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? You’re 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, I’d rather it come to Vermont than to South Carolina. And that’s what the Vermont National Guard wants, and that means hundreds of jobs in my city. That’s 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.
 

VermontKevin

(1,473 posts)
211. I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. I think Sanders securing the f-35, Sandia, and Lockheed
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:15 PM
Jul 2017

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

(16,919 posts)
216. "Learning to love Sandia" That's a subtitle of an article about the Sandia labs
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:23 PM
Jul 2017

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.

 

Expecting Rain

(811 posts)
168. Sanders is consistently friendly to dictators...
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 03:30 PM
Jul 2017

authoritarians, and totalitarians.

So I should be surprised why?

Warpy

(110,900 posts)
207. I honestly have no clue
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:01 PM
Jul 2017

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)
210. Actually he explained and SURPRISE! It has nothing to do with being "friendly" to Putin.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:10 PM
Jul 2017

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.




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

(110,900 posts)
221. Thanks. I hadn't read his reasoning. It's sound.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:39 PM
Jul 2017

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

(16,919 posts)
222. It was a lopsided vote, 98-2 in the Senate. It's not "wild speculation" to
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:54 PM
Jul 2017

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...

R B Garr

(16,919 posts)
230. 419 to 3, a bipartisan show against Trump
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 08:15 PM
Jul 2017

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)
231. The question is
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 08:40 PM
Jul 2017

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

(16,919 posts)
232. Welcome to DU....
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 08:57 PM
Jul 2017

What "stuff"?? You can ask Skinner yourself, you probably know the forum?

And 419:3 makes really good headlines. Seriously.

PufPuf23

(8,687 posts)
208. I think you are delusional if you actually believe Sanders is "friendly" to Putin.
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:02 PM
Jul 2017

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)
214. Bernie is not against samctions on Russia
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:21 PM
Jul 2017

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

(19,933 posts)
220. Sanders Statement on New Iran, North Korea, Russia Sanctions
Sat Jul 29, 2017, 05:29 PM
Jul 2017
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-new-iran-north-korea-russia-sanctions

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 Trump’s approach to Iran, especially in light of his recent comments that he will refuse to recertify Iran’s 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."
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
235. You have no reason to imply that he's friendly to Putin.
Sun Jul 30, 2017, 02:42 AM
Jul 2017

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?


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why is Bernie Sanders vot...