Is there a senator who is filibustering this bill? It seems that there were 59 yes votes and four absences - how many nays are there, and who is obstructing this bill?
Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the outcome.
Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
31–40 of 293 posts
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bernie decided to just not vote even though his vote would have changed the outcome.
Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#33I wonder how broadly they define “internet browsing and search history”. I’m assuming email is somehow included. I wonder if mobile app data falls under the umbrella.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?
Can you explain how this is consistent with his political alignment? Because Bernie Sanders (regardless of how you feel about him) has voted consistently against increasing the surveillance state. Hence why his vote wouldn't have mattered, because it would've been a NAY vote and NAY votes don't have any affirmative power.
It's "yea" for requiring warrants, and "nay" for warrantless surveillance (which is somehow the law of the land now? When did I miss this??)
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?
Can you explain how this is consistent with his political alignment? Because Bernie Sanders (regardless of how you feel about him) has voted consistently against increasing the surveillance state. Hence why his vote wouldn't have mattered, because it would've been a NAY vote and NAY votes don't have any affirmative power.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?
Can you explain how this is consistent with his political alignment? Because Bernie Sanders (regardless of how you feel about him) has voted consistently against increasing the surveillance state. Hence why his vote wouldn't have mattered, because it would've been a NAY vote and NAY votes don't have any affirmative power.
Assuming Bernie would have voted YEA on this, we're all wondering why he didn't vote at all.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't spread falsehoods. Bernie's vote wouldn't have mattered unless he voted in favor of the bill, in which case the bill would've passed. An absent vote is the same thing as a nay vote in the Senate. To pass this amendment it requires 60 affirmative votes, of which there were 59.
Of course he would have voted in favor, why do you assume he would side with the corrupt elite against the general public when his entire platform is the opposite.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#38Once again the lack of media coverage on this is appalling. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment that goes up for vote tomorrow that would disallow this surveillance on American citizens, which of course is not expected to pass. McConnell is drafting language to prevent this from being used on “federal election candidates” which of course is expected to pass.
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#39This article does an incredibly bad job of explaining the current status of this law, and what is expected to happen next. Has the existing law expired? Is it being replaced with something equally bad? Is the replacement subject to further change? Am I just bad at reading?
Re: Senate narrowly rejects plan to require a warrant for Americans’ browsing data
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, if the Bernie voted “yes” (which is consistent with his usual political alignment), then the amendemnt would have passed, right? If yes, then how do you derive “his vote wouldn’t have mattered” from this?
Can you explain how this is consistent with his political alignment? Because Bernie Sanders (regardless of how you feel about him) has voted consistently against increasing the surveillance state. Hence why his vote wouldn't have mattered, because it would've been a NAY vote and NAY votes don't have any affirmative power.