This message was self-deleted by its author

[Jesus Malverde]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Jesus Malverde) on Fri Jun 5, 2015, 09:07 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[merrily]

1. Didn't he vote against it originally, when that vote was hardest, and also against the first

renewal? He was in the House then.

What in hell happened?

[mythology]

10. Specifically which law did he vote for?

The bill passed by the Senate tonight had major changes to provisions of the Patriot Act such as bulk data collection. Perhaps he felt that the new bill was more acceptable.

[DCBob]

2. Technically it was a vote to limit debate or cloture.

The actual yea/nay vote will be sometime in the next couple of days.

[merrily]

107. thank you for that clarification.

[LynneSin]

162. Yeah I know people don't get this

That somehow voting on cloture means it's a person's final vote.

[peecoolyour]

3. The USA Freedom Act has not been voted on.

Final vote scheduled to take place some time on Tuesday.

Today's vote(s) were procedural.

[99Forever]

6. Ahhh ... now I get it!

... makes much more sense. Guess some shit-stirring chump, was trying to do a smear job.

[Jesus Malverde]

17. "shit-stirring chump"

actually just disappointed.



The vote gives the freedom act and patriot act legs.

17 voted against, Bernie was not one of them.

[scarletwoman]

67. The 17 who voted "Nay" on this PROCEDURAL VOTE were all Republicans.

There were just 2 Democrats who didn't vote "Yea", and they were "Not Voting". (Out of town?) http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00196

That means every single Democratic Senator who was present voted "Yea".

Also, the "Freedom Act" is a replacement for the Patriot Act. This was a vote toward letting the Patriot Act die.

[JDPriestly]

80. The "Freedom Act" ends the surveillance as I understand it.

The USA Freedom Act is a bill originally introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress on October 29, 2013. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym (USA FREEDOM) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act."

The bill was re-introduced in the 114th Congress, receiving support for acting as "a balanced approach"[3] while being questioned for amendments and extending the Patriot Act through the end of 2019.[4] Supporters of the bill say the most the House Intelligence Committee and House leadership[5] would allow is ending bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act[6] until Section 702 of FISA comes up for review at the end of 2017. Critics assert that mass surveillance of the content of Americans' communication will continue under Section 702 of FISA[7][8] and Executive Order 12333[7][9] due to the "unstoppable surveillance-industrial complex"[10] despite the fact that a bipartisan majority of the House had previously voted to close backdoor mass surveillance.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

[bl968]

100. Doesn't end anything

Then you don't understand anything. This bill monitors the same things, just the telephone company would maintain the database instead of the NSA directly. 2. It authorizes access of the same information they have been collecting from landlines on mobile phones for the first time. It expands the surveillance state while purporting to limit it. A common tactic used by enablers.

[cui bono]

137. JDPriestly is one of the most informative and level headed posters on DU.

She doesn't deserve your rude comment that she doesn't understand anything.

I think she's a she.

[JDPriestly]

147. If the phone company keeps the records and the NSA/CIA/contractor, etc. has to get a specific warran

for a specific person and line based upon probable cause set forth in the application, request or motion for the warrant, then it seems to me that complies with the Constitution.

The problem with the database surveillance and the acquisition of vast amounts of materials with merely a court order that say Verizon should produce all of its phone bills is the lack of specificity and probable cause. The FISA court orders were the equivalent of general warrants, the general warrants that lead to our American Revolution and in particular, John Hancock's prominent signature on the Declaration of Independence.

For me, the warrants are not a problem if they describe with specificity the things to be searched as required by the Fourth Amendment. That requirement should end the collection of vast amounts of records most of which are necessarily and utterly irrelevant to any criminal investigation.

Your records, my records -- a waste of time for the NSA. And that is true even though we have family and friends in other countries and talk to them on the phone on occasion. I'd rather that our government increase the amount of money spent on food stamps and on housing for the homeless than on the NSA's collection of this absurd amount of data. On the other hand, if they have probable cause and can identify specifically what they want, the NSA or other departments in our government should be able to get a warrant and seize what they want to seize rather easily.

[merrily]

120. Gee, I guess all the disgruntled people on this thread will be voting for one of those Republicans?

Bernie may have been obligated to vote as he did, esp. if his vote was no where near the deciding vote. Please see Reply 108

[scarletwoman]

123. The amount of misinformation in this thread is mind-boggling.

Looks like "low-information" isn't just a problem limited to Republican voters.

[merrily]

127. I can't say I am 100% sure what happened or why, but I'm willing to try to find out before I start

pretending that Bernie is worse on this issue than Hillary.

The double standards are hilarious, both for Bernie vs. Hillary and Bernie's DU supporters v. Hillary's.

IOW, business as usual on DU.

[BrotherIvan]

132. Our low information voters number in the tens at least

[merrily]

128. PS Please see also Replies 75, 95 and 121, esp. 95.

[sabrina 1]

84. Bernie explained why he would vote for this tonight on Meet the Press.

[merrily]

108. Chuck Toad was "considerate" enough to put Sanders on the spot about this.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/31/bernie_sanders_on_usa_freedom_act_i_may_well_be_voting_for_it_does_not_go_far_enough.html

I

FYI, I don't think he CAN vote against the Dem Caucus on cloture. They have a deal. They don't support any Dem who runs against him as long as he votes with them on "administrative" matters without getting their permission And they don't give their permission. It's in his wiki. I guess cloture could be considered administrative.

They probably made the deal because he'd beat the Dem anyway. He always has. However, the deal saves him time he'd probably spend on something else and money that he does not have to waste.

[Cha]

150. "Guess some shit-stirring chump, was trying to do a smear job." I expect nothing but personal

insult from you. You never vary.

[Jesus Malverde]

11. Procedural votes that gave the legislation legs

right?

[peecoolyour]

20. The only thing this vote (77-17) did was end debate.

Debate can't go on forever.

Eventually people have to vote YES or NO, and the bill either passes or it doesn't.

Cloture only delays the inevitable.

The vote on Tuesday is the only one that matters.

[Jesus Malverde]

25. Actually it stopped any chance of a filibuster

By those opposed to the bill.

[JDPriestly]

83. Jesus, is this the bill you are talking about:

The USA Freedom Act is a bill originally introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress on October 29, 2013. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym (USA FREEDOM) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act."

The bill was re-introduced in the 114th Congress, receiving support for acting as "a balanced approach"[3] while being questioned for amendments and extending the Patriot Act through the end of 2019.[4] Supporters of the bill say the most the House Intelligence Committee and House leadership[5] would allow is ending bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act[6] until Section 702 of FISA comes up for review at the end of 2017. Critics assert that mass surveillance of the content of Americans' communication will continue under Section 702 of FISA[7][8] and Executive Order 12333[7][9] due to the "unstoppable surveillance-industrial complex"[10] despite the fact that a bipartisan majority of the House had previously voted to close backdoor mass surveillance.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

What bill are you talking about? Cloture on what bill?

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. It is on the freedom

act

[HereSince1628]

23. The procedural vote pushes the House version up, & knocks down NSA bulk surveillance

Some of the worst things in the NSA surveillance program are going to be ending at midnight.

-AND- the nation will still have basic surveillance capacity.

[TDale313]

4. Why? What was the logic?

I don't understand this vote.

[99Forever]

5. Okay. I'll see what he has to say about that vote. I don't like it one bit.

So how did Martin O'Malley and Hillary Clinton vote on this?

[bigwillq]

8. O'Malley voted Nay

Hillary kept passing, to wait and see how O'Malley voted, and then voted nay.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. How Clintonian...

[99Forever]

13. Perfect!

You nailed that!

[arcane1]

9. He mentioned it on Meet the Press and said why he might vote for it

CHUCK TODD: I know you're going to be flying back form Minneapolis to Washington for this Special Senate Session. The PATRIOT Act, the NSA, section 215, I assume you are a supporter of the USA Freedom Act. Are you?

BERNIE SANDERS: I may well be voting for it. It does not go as far as I would like it to go. I voted against the original PATRIOT Act and against the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act.

We have got to be vigorous about defending the American people and we have to do it in a way that protects their Constitutional rights, and I am very very worried, what we are seeing not only from not only the NSA and the government, but from corporate America...

Privacy rights, it is a huge issue. I am not comfortable with it, but we have to look at the best of bad situations.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/31/bernie_sanders_on_usa_freedom_act_i_may_well_be_voting_for_it_does_not_go_far_enough.html


(thanks to Jefferson23 for the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026759863#post4)

[DCBob]

14. Hmmm.. a compromise vote.

[KittyWampus]

22. O'Malley was an executive… like the office of President. Not a career politician in Washington.

[BrotherIvan]

133. ***Career politician***

[KittyWampus]

155. without many, many votes that can be cherry-picked, like Sanders and Clinton.

[Paka]

86. Not being current Senators,

neither O'Malley nor Clinton have a vote on this. They may have an opinion, but they don't have a vote.

[nationalize the fed]

15. extremely disappointing. Going to O'Malley's website now to have a look.

[scarletwoman]

110. Well, you for sure won't find anything, since he's not a Senator.

[FSogol]

167. LOL. n/t

[MohRokTah]

16. The limited debate procedure gives cover to Senators.

This proves Bernie Sanders is just like any other Senator.

[Major Hogwash]

18. Not much.

More like a hand towel instead of a beach towel.

[MohRokTah]

19. In days gone past, the cloture vote was enough cover.

Then activists wised up.

[KingCharlemagne]

105. At least Bernie had the decency not to vote for a war based entirely on lies that

has killed 1,000,000+ civilians. Way to go, Hillary!

[neverforget]

109. I have yet to agree with any politician 100%

and Bernie Sanders is no different.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. No, he voted for limited debate

the USPA has expired and the Senate will be reconvening to vote on the Freedom Act (how orwellian) next week. I know, you are taking advantage of folks who, bless their hearts, becuase it is a pain... have no clue how the Senate works. It is dishonest.

[Jesus Malverde]

24. He voted to give the legislation a second chance.

Wrong vote at the wrong time.



Now it will likely pass, because of his vote(and others).

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. 75-13... how exactly do you reconcile that?

Again, dishonest

[Jesus Malverde]

27. That he voted with the majority to limit a filibuster

so that the law can pass. Seems clear to me.



btw it was 75-17

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Let's assume for a second he voted against it

that would be 74-14

Just for the rest of the class, how many votes are needed for the resolution to pass? You can do it.

Dishonest

[MohRokTah]

31. 60

So he joined others who voted to allow it to pass on a striaght up vote instead of letting it die on a cloture vote.

[Jesus Malverde]

34. Whats that have to do with Bernies vote?

Deal with it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. I am, I am calling you on your dishonesty

It is quite dishonest. I expect no less from this place, to be honest, but it is still quite dishonest. You are also saying that he voted for the actual piece of legislation, which is a mischaracterization and also dishonest.

Have the last word. Please.

[MohRokTah]

38. IT is no different than voting for cloture. eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. Partisans. Gotta love 'em

they act as if this was the first time.

If he voted with the minority you would scream about it too. Dishonesty with breakfast. Just what keeps the demagoguery going.

[merrily]

113. IOW, his vote did not matter, even for cloture? Please see Reply 108.

If his vote was irrelevant anyway, I'm not that troubled.

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. Once They got over 60 it was irrelevant.

[MohRokTah]

29. Plus, there is no longer a 60 vote threshold because there is no longer a cloture vote.

So he voted to insure it would pass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Dishonest argument over a procedural vote

But I expect no less.

If this was so close to 60, you would have an argument, but it was not.

[MohRokTah]

35. It's the same argument as with a cloture vote.

This was essentially the cloture vote on the legislation, and he voted to let t go to the floor for a straight up or down vote.

No dishonesty at all. He voted for the bill before he will vote against it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. like most democrats

I do not like the practice but the OP is mischaracterizing the whole thing.

[MohRokTah]

41. The nly way to stop the bill was for it to fail cloture.

Sanders failed to stand on principle.

This makes him no different than any other politician.

The cloak of purity has been thrown off.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. It is not as black and white as you would like to pretend this is

I get it, why... but this is still highly dishonest

I prefer facts, not dishonestly, and like I told the OP, please feel free to have the last word.

[MohRokTah]

44. So Bernie Sanders is the ONLY Senator who gets a pass on a cloture vote of a bill we don't like.

Gotcha.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. More dishonesty

Here is the vote

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00196

75 Senators voted for this... and trust me, there are not 80 Republicans in the US Senate. Dishonest and stupid argument. I know were you are coming from, but that is dishonest.

Of course, you twisting words to fit a narrative is not just expected, but also extremely dishonest.

[MohRokTah]

46. I further guarantee, 60 will not vote on the final bill.

Bernie Sanders proved he is nothing more than just another politician with this vote.

Those who give him a pass?

Meh.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. That is your convenient narrative

and this is quite normal in legislative bodies around the country.

And now truly, have the last world, unless you again twist my words.

And I expect precisely these kinds of OPs and defense of the dishonesty from hyper partisans.

And you guys are highly entertaining.

[MohRokTah]

50. Then Give Obama a pass for promoting it.

Furthermore, give McConnell and the entire GOP Senate Caucus a pass on it, too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. More twisting of words

for somebody who claims to know how the system works you don't



Please proceed, this is starting to be not just predictable but highly amusing.

(Clue getting how it works does not mean giving the President a pass, or bush for that matter. This place was all kinds of horrors when the TelCos were used for this crap....but damn you were all annoyed and gave the POTUS a pass after Snowden came out... consistent, you are not)

[MohRokTah]

53. It's reality. Sanders dumped principle for expediency.

It's what good politicians do.

But it's not the standard of purity EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT is held to by the Left, other than Saint Bernard the Pure.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. More popcorn

I should watch it, the virtual one will raise those blood sugars though

[MohRokTah]

58. .

[cui bono]

140. What expediency? His vote made absolutely no difference.

As to your purity bs, it is exactly that, bs.

No one thinks Bernie is a saint. Name calling doesn't change that.

[cui bono]

139. +1

[cui bono]

141. Obama didn't just promote it, he extended it in 2011.

Thankfully Snowden came out as a whistleblower and got us talking about it again.

[Autumn]

159. Hillary voted for the Patriot Act in 2001. She voted in favor of a compromise renewed act

2006 that passed by an 89–10 margin. I gave her a pass on those when I supported her in 2008 along with her vote for the IWR. I think I can give Bernie a few passes if it turns out that passes are needed. I'm curious. Since Sanders vote on cloture for this bill proved he is nothing more than just another politician , what do Hillary's past votes prove?

[merrily]

129. 77 yeas, 17 mays, 6 not voting. Bernie could have easily stayed out of town and made it 7. Not a

thing would be different if he had taken the easy way out, except that DU's right could not have swarmed all over his vote for no apparent reason whatsoever.

All 17 nays were Republicans. So, I guess Hillary supporters need to vote for one of those 17 Republicans if they think Bernie's vote on this was not far enough left for them. He voted against the Iraq War, against the Patriot and against renewal of the Patriot Act. Hillary voted for all 3 and advocated strongly for the Iraq War to boot, so she's further right thanBernie on these issues.

Meanwhile, it seems the Freedom Act is an improvement over the Patriot Act. So, so and so Sanders made an irrelevant vote for the improvement.. I say we tar and feather him.

[merrily]

115. Actually, so far, out of 77 Senators, he's the only one you're blaming, so just about the opposite

of what you posted.

[cui bono]

142. +1

[cui bono]

138. What cloak of purity?

[merrily]

114. His vote insured nothing. It was not the 60th vote or even close.

[KoKo]

39. Not really...he feels that Amendments can be made to the Freedom Act......

There was probably a back room deal for a compromise because Rand Paul backed down and they had to make deal with him...and we will be told that the Amendments will make it better than the "Patriot Act" if it had Lived as McConnell wanted it to be. Remember McConnel wanted Patriot act and Not the Freedom Act. BTW: Rand Paul also wanted his Amendments to "Freedom Act" and he couldn't get the vote.

Am I happy about this...no. But everyone seems to love COMPROMISE and that is what we got and Obama did screw thumbs to Dems and with Biden's son dying and Kerry crashing his bike and his femur...we get what we gets...........

We shall see. I expect little good of this. But, I hope to be surprised. Don't blame Bernie for this. His voting against would have been worse than voting for going forward.

[MohRokTah]

48. .

[Cheese Sandwich]

30. Does anybody see the list of how all the Senators voted on this? Where to find.

I want to see who all voted for it and against it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. The senate should have posted it by now

and most democrats voted for it

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Here

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00196

[Cheese Sandwich]

61. Thank You! The only people voting No seem to be a few Tea Party people. All the Dems voted Yes

YEAs ---77
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gardner (R-CO)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lankford (R-OK)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Perdue (R-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs ---17
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Coats (R-IN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)


Not Voting - 6
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schatz (D-HI)

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Exactly

What happened might rub me the wrong way, but it is a procedural vote and most procedural votes that succeed and advance legislation go like this. A few are nail biters.

It is like... this is Tuesday in the U.S. Senate

[Sheepshank]

90. Bernie could have voted in either direction. For folks to say he's cut from a different cloth

..or that he's NOT a run of the mill politician, is no longer very true. He's a lot like most of them

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Except that if he voted NAY

you all would be screaming that he is not a real progressive since he voted with the Tea Party crew

So he voted in a way that he thought was best for the country, not the intricacies of Junior Hi Underground. And if you bothered listening to him in the morning with Chuck Todd, he signaled this was the likely vote, not becuase he was very happy with it, but because it was better than the USPA... which has expired as of 12:00 Utah time. (Where the servers are)

These smears, and I am not supporting anybody running for office, are not just predictable, but are following the same script of 2008. Tell me how did the Hillary Clinton two terms in office worked for you? And what happened to that fella from Illinois?

[Sheepshank]

94. So Bernie Cheer team got what they wanted with the man who can do no wrong? N/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. He voted with every democrat

present in the chamber. If he voted with the tea party you would crucify him anyway.

Your comments are lovely projection.

[Sheepshank]

101. That just what I said the first time...he's not all that different.

And you appeared to take exception to that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Nah

but have an excellent evening.

[Art_from_Ark]

149. Yeah, if he had voted with the teapartiers, we would have heard...

"Look at that! Only teapartiers voted NAY, and Bernie voted with them!!! And you claim he's a LIBERAL???????

[merrily]

117. I'm not sure if he could have voted either way.

the vote may be part of an agreement to which he is a party, but I am not 100% sure of that.

In any event, agreement or not, his vote is irrelevant to cloture in a mix of 77 votes. Getting exercised over it is a little obvious.

[cui bono]

143. Yes, because as we all know, one action defines an entire human being.

So we can all just forget everything else we know about him.

The thing about liberals is we look at the big picture. We know there is no one out there who is going to be our everything all the time, contrary to the DU 'purity' meme. Bernie is my choice based on his record and what he stands for and who he fights for, and that is EVERYBODY who is part of the 99%.

[Sheepshank]

165. Just the same as those complaining about HRC and her Goldwater connection when she was 17!!

same argument, but the shoe is on the other foot. Except perhpas this is even worse...Sanders could have voted his conscience, could have voted, the way the portrayed his values to be. Hillary wasn't even voting age.

[cui bono]

175. The Goldwater connection needs to die. People change. I want to know what she thinks today.

I have not brought it up as a negative and in fact, I have said that it's irrelevant.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6757837

The past is good for showing how long someone has been fighting for something in particular, for example, how Bernie has been fighting for civil rights and equal rights since the sixties.

[Sheepshank]

177. you are right....

who HRC hung out with at age 17 and a paper Sanders wrote in 1972 (?) IS irrelevant.

There are many here that want to use these as points to bludgeon the non-desired candidate with.

[Bluenorthwest]

168. Actually, the count was such that his vote was moot, it made no difference to the outcome, typical

Congress person running for President would have remained on the road and simply not voted. Few would notice, it can be waved away with 'my vote would not have changed the outcome anyway' and that is what the run of the mill politician would do.

[Sheepshank]

169. and since that is true...why not vote with the standards he portrays?

in the long run, who he voted with or against isn't the issue, it's how he voted.

[JonLP24]

156. Susan Collins is further left than a few Democratic Senators

The rest of the list are more of the Republicans I associate crap with though Paul - Libertarians tend to be solid on civil liberties issues though it is a primary year coming up & Paul has twisted himself up into a pretzel changing his positions but I have to look more into it. I do understand it was procedural vote to see what it does or doesn't do as far as doing enough for civil liberties protections but Susan Collins is interesting to see on that list with Rand Paul -- no Republican Senator joins Democrats on a vote more than Collins and on a lot of 50/50 hot-button issues.

[MohRokTah]

42. From the reactions to your thread...

the ONLY Senator who gets a pass on a cloture vote is Bernie Sanders.

[Jesus Malverde]

47. Strange world..nt

[SoapBox]

54. He would not get a pass...

But the concept being pushed in the thread that due to HIS vote, that all is doomed due to HIS vote.

There is now a list up of who voted and how...and appears this was just to stop the filibuster? And, there were various stories today on changes to the law/bill coming up...the details are?

The thread would appear to be a, Sanders is a bad man, implication....it's a cheap shot.

[MohRokTah]

56. He threw out principle for expediency.

Good politicians do this.

Purity tests from the left decry this for all Democrats.

Saint Bernie gets a pass.

It's fascinating.

[Cheese Sandwich]

62. Every Democrat voted yes on it. Just a handful of Republicans voted no.

[MohRokTah]

65. It's cover.

In the 90s it was standard to vote in favor of cloture and against the bill.

Now many Democrats will vote against it and tell their constiuents they voted against it, even though they voted for it before they voted against it.

Including Bernie Sanders.

[Cheese Sandwich]

68. No he's probably voting for it, he said so on TV today. Every Democrat voted yes today

Just a handful of Tea Party types voted no.

You're seriously suggesting Bernie Sanders cast the wrong vote today? OK

YEAs ---77
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Gardner (R-CO)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Heller (R-NV)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lankford (R-OK)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Perdue (R-GA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs ---17
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Coats (R-IN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cotton (R-AR)
Crapo (R-ID)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)


Not Voting - 6
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Sasse (R-NE)
Schatz (D-HI)

[MohRokTah]

71. Cover, like I said. eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. So he has endorsed MY CANDIDATE

MokRahTah, buddy, we are going to endorse Big Money. You know, he\she\ really IT, will win hands down and continue the country down the road towards complete and total oligarchy. That is great to know!

After all this, and to think he and I agree on something. Who knew?

Thanks Scootaloo (Of course I mean this in complete and full and some sadness, tinged with cynicism, but that is another story. From what you just posted, he does not.)

[Cheese Sandwich]

75. LOL Ok then

I bet if Bernie had voted the other way today, some of the same people would be on here attacking him for voting with the Tea Party fringe, and being out of step with mainstream Dems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. DING, DING. DING

[Scootaloo]

81. Absolutely

These are the sane clump of dead cells that have been trying to cast him as indifferent or even hostile to people of color.

if they stooped any lower their knuckles would make furrows in the dirt.

[Paka]

89. You called it.

[merrily]

125. Thread win, though Reply 95 is no slouch.

[aspirant]

131. And...

he really isn't a democrat, just a small state Independent

[Thespian2]

104. Yep!

I think Scootaloo has the problem dissected...

[cui bono]

146. Truth. ^

[cui bono]

145. For what expediency? How did his one vote accomplish expediency?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. DING, DING, DING

[aintitfunny]

96. Spot on

There seems to be a serious investment efforts to mislead and misrepresent. Absurd.

[uponit7771]

77. +1

[cui bono]

144. From your reactions... the ONLY senator to blame for a cloture vote is Bernie Sanders.

Never mind the other 76 senators who voted with him.

[PowerToThePeople]

51. Lie.

Eom

[Jesus Malverde]

60. Did his vote not limit the ability of other senators to filibuster the law?

That is a vote for it.

[PowerToThePeople]

103. I am not going to repeat what Nadin has stated many times above.

Imo, it is a vote for the democratic process not for this law.

[catnhatnh]

59. Some here

Should take this bullshit to their little safe haven.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Hey, I had to write a story on this

already posted, after watching it on the SPAN... so this is actually quite entertaining... not necessarily in a good way, but it is entertaining nonetheless.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. I will not denigrate a fellow Democrat.

I will not denigrate a fellow Democrat. My candidate, Hillary The Good, will rise or fall of her own merit.

[Blue_Tires]

73. And Emoprog Golden Boy Rand Paul voted for it last November...

Your point?

[Jesus Malverde]

87. Emoprog

A pejorative used by hawkish, austerity-loving conservatives who think they're Liberals because they're not or barely not racist or anti-gay. Emoprogs make fake Democrat get their undies in a bunch because emoprogs insist that Democrats act like Democrats and not like Reagan Republicans.

Billy doesn't want to bomb Damascus with depleted uranium shells, he must be an emoprog.

Susie is an emoprog because she won't meet the republicans half-way on cutting Social Security earned benefits. But screw the elderly, I want a tax cut.

http://ja.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=emoprog

[Blue_Tires]

106. So an redassed emoprog spun the definition at UD...

Which is good for a chuckle, but refutes nothing I've said...So step your game up

I of course use the term in a completely different context, but then you already knew that...

Maybe you'll feel more at home here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?283-Rand-Paul-Forum

[Jesus Malverde]

111. O RYL?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026465798#post16

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016119732

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026638695#post15

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6515387

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026445654#post10

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026490544#post33

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016117337

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023774407#post42

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10026638695#post15

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141053993#post45

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026367987#post46

Sometimes its all you got.



JM

[Blue_Tires]

130. Bravo...You've got enough cognitive capacity to utilize DU's search function

And find a few examples of a certain pejorative I use multiple times on a daily basis -- Must have been tough work for you.. I *DO* find it interesting that what's missing from those posts is any kind of comment/rebuttal/argument/response from you...Which means you've been 100% A-OK with the word up to this point, and/or you just prefer bullshit and deflection instead of the topic being discussed, like you're doing right now...

I'm sorry, since that word obviously touches you in your 'sensitive place'...But I find it apt when conversing with the Snowden/Paul cultists, so if you don't to hear it, please prove me wrong by not living down to the stereotype...

[Jesus Malverde]

136. Its actually a good word

as the definition indicates, those that use it, betray themselves and show their true colors.

[SusanCalvin]

78. Here's the thing.

I trust that Bernie has a good reason and will explain it and stand behind it.

I don't even trust - I'm going to Google it in the morning and I bet I'm right.

G'night.

[MohRokTah]

82. Doesn't matter. From this point forward, all it takes are 51 votes.

That's a slam dunk.

All who voted for the limited debate insured it would pass.

All, that is, save Saint Bernie. He is far to principled to be counted amongst the other Democratic Rabble who favor a security state.

[JDPriestly]

85. Which bill is in play?

Is it this one?

The USA Freedom Act is a bill originally introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress on October 29, 2013. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym (USA FREEDOM) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act."

The bill was re-introduced in the 114th Congress, receiving support for acting as "a balanced approach"[3] while being questioned for amendments and extending the Patriot Act through the end of 2019.[4] Supporters of the bill say the most the House Intelligence Committee and House leadership[5] would allow is ending bulk collection under Section 215 of the Patriot Act[6] until Section 702 of FISA comes up for review at the end of 2017. Critics assert that mass surveillance of the content of Americans' communication will continue under Section 702 of FISA[7][8] and Executive Order 12333[7][9] due to the "unstoppable surveillance-industrial complex"[10] despite the fact that a bipartisan majority of the House had previously voted to close backdoor mass surveillance.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

If so, it is good that he voted for cloture because it ends the unlawful, unconstitutional surveillance.

[SoapBox]

97. Thank you for the clarification!

"Saint Bernard" and "Democratic Rabble"

i was probably only one of a handful on DU that didn't know where your political leanings would go...I know now.

[merrily]

118. And that would have been so even if Bernie voted nay. You all are so much fun.

[Sheepshank]

93. That kind of blind devotion is highly criticized here on DU.....

....but only when it's directed at any other candidate or POtUS other than Bernie lol. pretty funny, no?

[merrily]

121. Um, no Bernie supporter on this thread gave blind devotion. All are trying to figure out what

happened and why, and what sigificance Sanders; participation had, if any, from my first reply forward.

you realize, he could have easily stayed out of town for this vote as he was making campaign appearances; and his absence would not have changed a single thing, right? But he did not avail of himself of that escap hatch. He went out of his way to be on the record.

In his shoes, what do you think Hillary would have done? I think we have a pretty good idea.

[Sheepshank]

179. Ahhh so Obama rarely deserves similar future explanation, but Bernie does?

Up Thread, "I trust that Bernie has a good reason and will explain it and stand behind it. "

That kind of devotion was smacked down at ever turn when directed at Obama. It's hypocricy at it's finest.

[merrily]

180. At its finest? You must be kidding. You've never seen anything like that and well beyond on DU

about other politicians?

We must be reading different posts.

[Sheepshank]

181. "I trust that Bernie has a good reason and will explain it and stand behind it. "

so you think the trusting devotion to Bernie is ok, but similar sentiments directed at Obama and the inevitable 100 post smack downs didn't exist?

Yeah, I'd say we are reading different posts.

[Cha]

148. Yes, it's the glaring Hypocrisy.. when they whine about others standing up for who they believe in

and, then they do the same.

I could perfectly understand those standing up for Bernie now but, I've had some really nasty replies supporting Pres Obama and now a lot of them are just plain ol hypocrites.

[SusanCalvin]

153. To my recollection, I have not "whined." nt

[cui bono]

178. Key words in your post:

standing up for who they believe in

That is the crux of the issue. You stand up for a man. Liberals stand up for a principle. No hypocrisy at all. No one is defending policy they would normally be against just because "who they believe in" is pushing for it or practicing it.

And no one is whining, except those trying to "gotcha" Sanders. People are actually trying to figure out what happened except for one busy poster who is determined to blame the cloture vote going forward on Sanders even though looking at the numbers of the vote it is crystal clear that his vote was no where near the deciding vote.

[William769]

79. For you Jesus Malverde

[SoapBox]

99. +100

[Bobbie Jo]

170. IOKIYB

It's Ok If You're Bernie.

Look forward to more of this...

[workinclasszero]

92. He did?

[TM99]

95. Again for emphasis!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/martin-omalley-rand-pauls-patriot-act-moves-could-make-ameri#.tjznnZQWNd

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/martin-omalley-cites-executive-experience-comparison-obama/story?id=31426353

On other issues of foreign policy, O'Malley stayed fairly moderate. He said he was in favor of the USA Freedom Act passed in the House, which would overhaul NSA's controversial phone surveillance and metadata collection program while extending other provisions of the Patriot Act. The bill failed in the Senate last week, as did a straight extension of the Patriot Act. As such, key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire tonight.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-endorses-nsa-reform-bill

“Congress should move ahead now with the USA Freedom Act — a good step forward in ongoing efforts to protect our security & civil liberties,” Clinton wrote on Twitter Thursday.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/31/bernie_sanders_on_usa_freedom_act_i_may_well_be_voting_for_it_does_not_go_far_enough.html

CHUCK TODD: I know you're going to be flying back form Minneapolis to Washington for this Special Senate Session. The PATRIOT Act, the NSA, section 215, I assume you are a supporter of the USA Freedom Act. Are you?

BERNIE SANDERS: I may well be voting for it. It does not go as far as I would like it to go. I voted against the original PATRIOT Act and against the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act.

We have got to be vigorous about defending the American people and we have to do it in a way that protects their Constitutional rights, and I am very very worried, what we are seeing not only from not only the NSA and the government, but from corporate America...

Privacy rights, it is a huge issue. I am not comfortable with it, but we have to look at the best of bad situations.


Sanders is the only one who appears not fully decided. He recognizes the need for compromise (something the pragmatic woodchucks here constantly say idealistic BernieBots are lacking in!) and may vote for the Freedom Act.

All he has done thus far is vote for cloture so that debate ends and we move forward with the next step.

To watch all of the lies, bullshit, and spin here about this, I feel disgusted that I ever believed that Democrats at DU were immune from this kind of shit because you know, Dems are 'reality based'.

[merrily]

124. Thank you. Couldn't be more obvious if they tried. Please see also Replies 108 and 121.

[progressoid]

112. O.F.F.S.

[beam me up scottie]

135. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Bernie's going to put spy cams in their cribs...

[nilesobek]

116. Well, the Democrats voted en masse

for the Patriot Act without reading it. They also signed off on the torture and Iraq war. I'm not against Bernie but I do heavily criticize those people naming these actions. There isn't a real patriot who would support the Patriot Act, or "Freedom Act." I fear for my country when liberal Democrats go all in for such jingoisms.

[Jesus Malverde]

119. Thanks for the comment.

The USA FREEDOM ACT is the PATRIOT act redux.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150529/12193431151/sunsetting-few-parts-patriot-act-may-be-symbolic-good-it-wont-really-change-much-itself.shtml

[davidpdx]

158. They did?

Really how do you know this? Please do share your expertise and knowledge since you were in the room when the bill was being discussed?

Or

Are you saying Democrats can't read?


The former makes you a liar, the later makes you a troll. So, which is it?

[nilesobek]

189. Are you saying that our Democrats all read every line

of the patriot act and researched it fully before casting their overwhelmingly jingoistic, catastrophic vote? I think you overreact. I would never call you those things or even insinuate them. They passed the bill in the night over a scared populace and a congress who I think was too lazy to read it since if they voted "no," they would be accused of being anti-American traitors. Show me where I'm wrong instead of your standard insults. Gee whiz.

[davidpdx]

190. No, you are implying that ALL the Democrats in Congress at the time did not read the Patriot Act

Well, the Democrats voted en masse

for the Patriot Act without reading it. They also signed off on the torture and Iraq war. I'm not against Bernie but I do heavily criticize those people naming these actions. There isn't a real patriot who would support the Patriot Act, or "Freedom Act." I fear for my country when liberal Democrats go all in for such jingoisms.

en mass-as a group.

That means you are claiming that all of the Democrats voted without reading the bill. Not one.

You are the one that made the claim, so please show me your proof and back up the claim. Either that or don't make sweeping statements that are untrue.

By the way, I was saying that you meant that Congressional Democrats were either liars or couldn't read NOT me.

[nilesobek]

191. Well I'm sorry Davidpdx.

I don't have the proof. I thought it was sort of common knowledge that they signed this monstrosity without even reading it. I have not come out for or against Bernie of Hillary and don't mean to rile anyone up. That's why I usually avoid the heavy duty political threads. I'm just outraged by the last 15 years.

Even if I had the proof it would be like technology shaming because I can barely use a computer for a typewriter.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

122. Purity trolling Bernie now?!?

Holy frick. I wonder if anyone to the right of Che is acceptable to the usual screamers, around here. Probably not.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[merrily]

126. Yes, but most of the purity trolling of Bernie is coming from Hillary supporters, which is

downright hilarious given her Iraq War advocacy and votes for the Patriot Act.

[cui bono]

176. Yes! Purity trolling! Thank you! And yes! From the "usual screamers"!!!

But it's coming from Hillary supporters who think that liberals believe Sanders is a saint, even though it's the Hillary supporters calling him St. Bernard.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

185. Um, I don't think the OP, "Jesus Malverde" is a big Clinton supporter...

...and I don't see a huge amount of Clinton supporters pushing this. But feel free to prove me wrong.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. This is the second thread on this line

after the first got pushback. I do not think many tried after this second one.

It is dishonest misrepresentation of Senate procedures.

[cui bono]

187. Well he's certainly not a Bernie supporter. I was agreeing with you about the purity trolls.

The ones in this thread look to be Hillary supporters to me. Again, it's certainly not Bernie supporters.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

188. Well, not for anti-Bernie threads

There is certainly plenty of purity trolling by Bernie supporters in anti-Hillary threads. It seems to be almost a daily OP, actually.

Personally, I don't think any candidate can meet these kinds of unrealistic demands. But it goes beyond the pale when it comes to pushing GOP stories like "someone rich donated to a President's charity" or (for Bernie) "most of the Vermont supporters of his at a rally were white", as if he can control a state's demographics.

For the record, I will be pushing the Democratic nominee in the general, doing my standard volunteering, etc.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

192. Legitimate criticism is not purity trolling.

Where have you seen one person say a candidate must each and every specific desire/need they have?

The whole purity meme on DU is a myth devised by the centrists in an attempt to ridicule and dismiss the left.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

193. I rarely see such admissions by purity trolls...

It's about as common as admission of racism from the obvious racists posting on the Discussionist - and about as believable as well.

There are many posters on the DU from which you will never hear this sentence, "It's not quite a liberal as I would have liked, but all in all, it's not that big of a deal, and I really love the candidate."

Instead, it's all hate, all the time. Including deliberately twisting facts to fit the us-vs-them worldview - the "them" to be clear, are other Democrats.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

194. If what you say is true, one would be able to point out a purity troll.

So have at it. Give me examples of what you've seen.

All I have seen is accusations and ridicule such as the pony comment. I don't see anyone coming close to demanding purity at all. What I see is people fighting for what they believe in. What's wrong with that?

From another post I wrote yesterday I believe:

Well, the history of this country is full of rights that were won by those you think will never be satisfied. That's a good thing. As soon as you get complacent the corporatists come in and take things over. And the fight is far from over. Look at all the systemic racism/sexism/homophobia in this country. Should we settle for that? No! We keep fighting. Look at the income disparity. Should we settle for that? No! We keep fighting. That's what democracy is about. You want to sit back and be happy with a few bread crumbs, have at it, but don't chastise people who are continuing to fight for equality and justice for all and who continue to fight for our constitutional rights.

You tell us we will never be satisfied and then tell us we have to be part of some larger movement. We are part of a larger movement. But you resent us for it. I believe it's because you are fine with corporate/RW policy. Progressives are not. Progressives seem to never be satisfied because we have a Dem POTUS who is enacting/enforcing/FIGHTING FOR Republican corporate policy. Why should we be satisfied with that? We should not be and so we continue to fight for what is right for the American people, not for global corporations.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

195. Your lack of self-awareness is astounding

In the very same post you're asking for an example of someone purity trolling, you quote yourself. I'm astounded that you're so blind.

Let me explain a bit of reality to you:
* Self-identified "very liberal" people represent 6% of the country, and only 10% of the Democratic party
* The fringe left, by which I will define as "people who think Obama holds center right views and/or is Republican-lite" represents about a third of that, which means your opinions represent about 2% of the country.
* Regarding your belief that "We are part of a larger movement. But you resent us for it." Nobody resents you for your fringe reality-divorced views about how popular you really aren't. Some get upset at your "more liberal than thou" sanctimony, as if you are some sort of moral arbiter of anything
* The person who you were addressing, was not only a Democrat, but almost certainly a liberal Democrat. Not good enough for a purity troll though.
* You were also purity trolling because you imagine that anything less than your absolutist view for some nebulous ideal is "FIGHTING FOR" (what you consider to be) "Republican corporate policy". Even if anything less than your absolutist hatred of "corporatism" (a.k.a. free trade) was something that Republicans could claim (which is very much in doubt - they're economic royalists not free trade advocates at all), you seem to imagine that compromising with Republicans means you're fighting "for" them. This is akin to the way neo-cons pretend that coming to an agreement with the Iranians is fighting "for" terrorists.
* Your concept of "fighting for" all these beliefs is spending hours writing long obnoxious sanctimonious insults about people who are, by and large, rowing in the same direction that you are - discouraging them, and driving down their willingness to be activists.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

196. Oh my... this reminds me of our last go around...

The purity meme on DU is that we never accept anything less than perfect. We are elated about Bernie. Is he perfect? Absolutely not. He's the closest politician to ideal that's running though.

Obama is fringe left? He's the one who describes himself as a moderate Republican.

The person I was addressing is in no way a liberal Democrat. They support the TPP. That's enough right there, but they also defend Obama on just about everything and Obama isn't even close to being a liberal Dem.

I was not purity trolling in the least. Why should anyone have any ideals if they don't want to try to have them enacted? As I clearly stated, if one gets complacent one loses ground. Just as the Dem Party keeps doing when they think everything is okay just because a Dem is in the WH. Well, that got us to the centrist position as far as party leadership is concerned after the last two Dem presidents, both of whom enacted centrist/Republican policies.

Your last editorial comment is your opinion. I expect nothing less from a conservative. If my internet words are "discouraging them, and driving down their willingness to be activists" then their activism wasn't worth very much to begin with. And if they are fighting for the TPP as that poster was then good, I welcome their discouragement.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

197. "the last two Dem presidents, both of whom enacted centrist/Republican policies"

You're obviously unfamiliar with Republican policies. And again, you don't represent the liberal wing of the party. You represent an angry fringe who looks at the world and sees basically everyone real as being to their right (while at the same time imagines that there are hundreds of millions of phantoms who completely agree with them). Anyone who thinks that Obama is really Republican (his rhetoric of the way pro-labor 1950s Republicans were, notwithstanding), is either being deliberately disingenuous or truly is delusional.

In general, the response you are going to get from the people you bash "discouragement". At best, they'll just ignore you, more normally, they'll mock you just like people mock the extreme right wing teabaggers. And at worst, they'll be driven away from voting for the democratic party..... which is what purity trolls clearly want.

The irony is that I've almost certainly helped your cause more than you have, even in places where I disagree with your positions. Specifically, I know Senators Wyden and Merkley, and have worked and contributed to both their elections, despite my disagreement with them that the NSA monitoring is such a big deal.

But you? You write in a safe haven where the same 100 people can upvote all your screeds, not realizing that most people are turned off by it. So meh - enjoy your irrelevance.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[cui bono]

198. So now you're saying that Obama is "being deliberately disingenuous or truly is delusional.

And before you said he was "fringe left". All because he calls himself a moderate Republican.

Keep talking, this is fun. I don't even mind all the insults you're hurling at me in an attempt to slime me. I just like how you keep dissing Obama without intending to.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

199. You clearly have reading comprehension issues...

...do we'll leave it there.

Enjoy your irrelevance.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[BrotherIvan]

134. Thanks for the laugh

[merrily]

151. Now that the dust has settled some, it seems Sanders made a vote for cloture that did not affect

anything, a vote he could have avoided entirely by staying out of town.

That vote may or may not have been required under terms of an agreement Sanders and the Democrat caucus made with each other.

The Freedom Act is a significant improvement over the Patriot Act. While Sanders said to Chuck Toad that it does not go far enough, it is still an improvement.

However, Sanders seems to think we need something in place to protect Americans. If so, I don't know how that meshes with his two previous votes against the Patriot Act. We'll await more info and developments.

[BumRushDaShow]

152. So he compromised principles?

He "put party over principle"?

His principles would have remained firm had he joined the libertarian douchebag in a filibuster or as a no for cloture. Barbara Lee (the only member to vote against the AUMF in 2001 that Bernie Sanders did vote for), ultimately voted no (like my House member Chaka Fattah).

[Jesus Malverde]

154. Agree with with most of that.

I was sad to see him miss the original filibuster, in which several dems participted. This seemed like a step in the wrong direction for him.

There is a tendency sometimes to over correct when someone gets pigeon holed one way or the other.

I've generally been supportive of Sanders in spite of the vitriol tossed around in this thread. Certainly a better record than HRC.

I see the USA FREEDOM Act as less being reform and more legitimizing the surveillance state.

[B Calm]

157. Much ado about nothing!

[djean111]

160. This thread lost any relevance it had when someone asked how O'Malley and Clinton voted.

In addition, I believe O'Malley and Clinton were FOR the Freedom Act. Links somewhere in this thread, I believe.
Another addition - those who screech about "purity" voters might take a page from their own playbooks - for me, there is literally nothing Bernie could do or say or vote on that would push me into the Clinton camp.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-endorses-nsa-reform-bill

On the same day a federal court ruled against the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of telephone data, Hillary Clinton joined the White House in endorsing a bill to roll back mass surveillance.

“Congress should move ahead now with the USA Freedom Act — a good step forward in ongoing efforts to protect our security & civil liberties,” Clinton wrote on Twitter Thursday.

The USA Freedom Act would end the NSA’s bulk collection of data under the Patriot Act’s controversial Section 215. The section is set to expire June 1 unless Congress takes action, and momentum is building around the rollback measure.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/martin-omalley-cites-executive-experience-comparison-obama/story?id=31426353

On other issues of foreign policy, O'Malley stayed fairly moderate. He said he was in favor of the USA Freedom Act passed in the House, which would overhaul NSA's controversial phone surveillance and metadata collection program while extending other provisions of the Patriot Act. The bill failed in the Senate last week, as did a straight extension of the Patriot Act. As such, key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire tonight.

Anyone who thinks we will have no surveillance at all is not being rational. IMO and all that.
I don't think, really, the NSA is going to do anything but be more sneaky, but then I am kind of cynical.
In addition to not being a purity voter.

[L0oniX]

161. Wow ...he voted with the Democrats? Whodathunkit.

[LynneSin]

163. Really? A thread like this I would expect from a Faux News Host

It was a cloture vote.

It was NOT the final vote.

There is a difference. Cloture just means let's end this debate and have a final vote on everything. There is no law that says a Senator must vote the same way in Cloture as they do in the final vote.

FYI, I am an undecided Democrat. I haven't really decided who to support because my heart was kinda with Team Biden but not sure what Joe is going to do after last weekend's heartbreaking news. I might just stay undecided until the Delaware primaries and put all my efforts into the general election because my final vote is NO GOP PRESIDENT.

[Jesus Malverde]

164. Cloture means no filibuster

Let's sunset the surveillance state.

It's an option I like.

[jeff47]

171. Not gonna happen.

Which leaves you with two options: Reform it, or let the Republicans make it happen.

This bill requires specific warrants for the government to access the surveillance data, thus re-establishing constitutional protections over the data.

In fact, this particular bill does a lot to reverse the 1979 SCOTUS ruling that is the basis for the NSA's program - the SCOTUS ruled phone records were an unprivileged business record. That means the government doesn't need a warrant. This bill adds a warrant requirement.

It's not perfect by a long shot. But it does more to reign in the NSA than anything else that can get through the fear party.

[LittleBlue]

172. That is very disappointing

Bernie... man.... whyyyyy you gotta do that to us?

Since it was for cloture, I'll see how he votes on the actual vote

[LanternWaste]

182. A melodramatic lack of knowledge of relevant senate procedures can make a lot of people look rather

A melodramatic lack of knowledge of relevant senate procedures can make a lot of people look rather under-educated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. You are way too kind

there is no ignorance here.

[FlatBaroque]

183. HAHAHA 9 recs.

I guessed 8 of the 9 recs.