Is a senator lying if they say they support a bill but refuse to break the filibuster for it?

[LonePirate]

Let's say Senator Z claims to support a bill, perhaps marijuana legalization as an example.

However, this same senator refuses to break up the filibuster in order to allow that marijuana legalization bill to receive a vote.

Does that senator truly support marijuana legalization or are they lying about their support for the bill due to their actions to prevent it from passing (via their refusal to eliminate the filibuster)?

Is this a lie? Is this some sort of cynicism or hypocrisy? Or is there something else going on here?

[Irish_Dem]

1. Some senators are more interested in a destructive, damaging process

rather than any of the issues in question.

[Demguy81]

2. For something as important as voting rights, 100% LIE

It's perfect politician speak to say "I would love for you to have the right to vote, but not if the archaic filibuster is in the way."

The same two senators would be fine with slavery if it meant even small reforms to the filibuster. Time to remove them from the party.

[The Magistrate]

3. Certainly It Is a Lie, Sir

[ShazamIam]

4. To me it looks like some agreement made to win her election. Arizona is deeply historically red, as

territory they sided with the Confederacy, and their Republicans lean heavily Bircher.
Here is what Goldwater had to say about them in 1962.

But that, Goldwater said, is the problem. Consider this, he exaggerated: “Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society. Russell, I’m not talking about Commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks, I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs. Any of you know who Frank Cullen Brophy is?”

https://www.commentary.org/articles/william-buckley-jr/goldwater-the-john-birch-society-and-me/

[qazplm135]

5. The hypocrisy is voting for a carve out for debt ceiling

Which passes by 51 votes but then saying you won't do it for voting rights because it won't be bipartisan or pass with more than 51 votes.

Just admit you think voting rights ain't worth it.

[Mike Nelson]

6. Well...

... I am probably in the minority, but I believe her: She will vote for the bill. It will fail. Also, she will not vote to end the Filibuster rule. So, she's saying that's where she's at... that's the truth. However, I believe the Filibuster rule should end now... It did evolve into something that pushed Senators to compromise. Those days are over... when Republicans are next in charge, Mitch or his replacement will end the Filibuster as soon as they need something passed... and there won't be any hemming and hawing - it will end quickly.

[LonePirate]

8. The filibuster has to be broken before the bill can be voted on.

Refusing to break the filibuster prevents a vote on the actual bill so we have no way of knowing what she truly believes because she never has a recorded vote on the issue.

[Mike Nelson]

9. Well...

... if she's a "no" on the voting rights bill(s), the whole Filibuster debate on this issue may be a waste of time.

[ColinC]

7. Yes n/t

[lame54]

10. A double agent lies about everything

[Bettie]

11. It's a way that they never have to have their support or non-support

for anything on the record.

They can tell Group A that they support this legislation, they can tell Group B that they are against it, because they know they will never, ever be asked to vote yes or no.

So, they can tell Group A that they would surely vote for it IF ONLY there was a vote, while telling Group B, "Don't worry, it will never become law".