# Sanders and Paul against sanctions. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 4, 2017, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733 "2017-08-04T00:16:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/41 "2017-08-04T19:18:01Z")
> [@](#): > > How about this? Gun sales have decreased under Trump. Gun distributors actually profit from 2nd Amendment paranoia. \*\*Blacks \*\*and **LGBTs** are buying guns to protect themselves from Trump supporters. Therefore, liberals are good for the gun market! > My bolding. > I wonder if you’ll be admonished for your use of the bolded words above. No I don’t. I have nothing in common with the alt-right, but nice smear attempt. And yet, there you are, bewaring the liberal boogeymen… ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/42 "2017-08-04T19:29:22Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > …[snip]… > Putin is a horrible autocrat. It is a shame that the sanctions will hardly hurt him and instead endanger and impoverish millions of innocents. Congress is also a shame. > …[snip]… Are these new sanctions targeting Russia in general? The existing sanctions, especially the Magnitsky Act, have been denying specific people in the Russian government like Putin access to most international banking. They ARE hurting Putin; so much so he spent lots of time effort and money installing Loser Donald to end them. It’s likely he has hundreds of _billions_ of dollars frozen. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/43 "2017-08-04T20:11:46Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Well, why should trans people have all the fun? I have this mental image of all of us wearing horned helmets and fur vests (Hagar The Horrible) stomping up and down the streets waving axes now 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/44 "2017-08-04T20:15:53Z")
> [@garygnu](#): > > Are these new sanctions targeting Russia in general? The existing sanctions, especially the Magnitsky Act, have been denying specific people in the Russian government like Putin access to most international banking. They ARE hurting Putin; so much so he spent lots of time effort and money installing Loser Donald to end them. It’s likely he has hundreds of _billions_ of dollars frozen. This. Putin has, according to reports, about 200 billion of his own money tied up. Additionally, it blocks the Tillerson Exxon oil deal that would have propped up “his” economy and provided more money for his “fun and games” in Ukraine. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/45 "2017-08-04T20:24:25Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > The left is more concerned with protecting a small group of some of the most privileged individuals in the entire world (the US military) over the large amount of victims of these same individuals. Don’t confuse “the left” with “Democrats in Congress”. They are not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/46 "2017-08-05T18:03:14Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Well, why should trans people have all the fun? I say everybody in the pool! We ALL get to help destroy the world, TOGETHER! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/47 "2017-08-05T18:08:10Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > All executive branch employees, and associated contractors, are now Trump’s minions. Absolutely NOT. Hell no. Every single individual person who was ever in any branch of the military took an oath to defend the country and the Constitution. They do NOT take an oath of fealty to ANY person. They do swear to follow orders, but the Constitution and the country still take precedence. The enlisted oath for the Army, as an example: I, \_\_\_\_\_, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will **support and defend the Constitution of the United States** against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, **according to regulations** and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). And no, they are expected to **NOT** follow unlawful illegal orders. You will find any other oaths are eerily similar. Loyalty to the country, not some “overlord”. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2017, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/48 "2017-08-05T19:18:28Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Their job is to represent the public (according to naive believers in representative democracy). Fully 40% of the public are being represented by 1.1% of the congress and no big media (dominated by power worshipers). Dude. Nothing you said there is true. Literally nothing. There is no reason to believe that elected representatives are simply supposed to take the temperature of their constituents and vote how such an opinion poll directs. Even if that were the case, you would have the same result in this case because a fairly strong majority of Americans favor the bill. And once again, 40% of Americans were not against the bill. About 60% polled their approval of the policy, and the remainder was split. Why do you think 20% of Americans (who do not approve of Russian sanctions) ought to be able to have 51% of Congress vote their way? Even if this were a direct democracy, the bill would be enacted anyway. I get it. It sucks to think you’re right and be on the losing side. I went through that just about 10 months ago. But the essence of your claim seems to be that the system is rigged against your opinions. I do not think that is the case: you just happen to hold unpopular opinions. Which I think at some level you recognize, right? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2017, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/49 "2017-08-05T23:00:33Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Absolutely NOT. Hell no. Every single individual person who was ever in any branch of the military took an oath to defend the country and the Constitution. They do NOT take an oath of fealty to ANY person. They do swear to follow orders, but the Constitution and the country still take precedence. > > The enlisted oath for the Army, as an example: > > I, \_\_\_\_\_, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will **support and defend the Constitution of the United States** against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, **according to regulations** and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). > > And no, they are expected to **NOT** follow unlawful illegal orders. > > You will find any other oaths are eerily similar. Loyalty to the country, not some “overlord”. Yet they will ask “How High?” when Trump says “Jump.” This all sounds great, but in practice, they will do whatever he tells them to. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/50 "2017-08-05T23:07:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Dude. Nothing you said there is true. Literally nothing. There is no reason to believe that elected representatives are simply supposed to take the temperature of their constituents and vote how such an opinion poll directs. Even if that were the case, you would have the same result in this case because a fairly strong majority of Americans favor the bill. > > And once again, 40% of Americans were not against the bill. About 60% polled their approval of the policy, and the remainder was split. Why do you think 20% of Americans (who do not approve of Russian sanctions) ought to be able to have 51% of Congress vote their way? Even if this were a direct democracy, the bill would be enacted anyway. > > I get it. It sucks to think you’re right and be on the losing side. I went through that just about 10 months ago. But the essence of your claim seems to be that the system is rigged against your opinions. I do not think that is the case: you just happen to hold unpopular opinions. Which I think at some level you recognize, right? Oh yes, the deficiencies in the mechanics of both of those forms of democracy are very clear to me. As is the minority status of my position. The point is the tree was shaken and scarcely a soul fell out. Bernie and Trump are hugely popular figures yet nobody saw fit to side with them on the issue. Something is off. There is usually some leftish Democrat that is solid on these issues. Is the Dem party discipline that serious that nobody wants to be associated with the Larry David impersonator? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2017, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/51 "2017-08-05T23:11:50Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Don’t confuse “the left” with “Democrats in Congress”. They are not the same thing. Very true. I sometimes fall into that Limbaughism, but here I would think at least one or two would break with the party if for nothing else but to get mentioned alongside Sanders. Someone is cracking the whip over there. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/52 "2017-08-06T00:19:34Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That doesn’t follow. > > Just because some people tell you something is offensive doesn’t mean that you’re required to accept that. You might decide these people are being overly PC, and that it’s not offensive to less hypersensitive people. Let’s try that out: “I call POC niggers all the time, and when folks tell me I’m being offensive, I just assume that they’re being overly PC and hypersensitive.” (and before you say it’s not the same thing, it’s _exactly_ the same thing). Don’t 'splain to a minority group what is and is not offensive to them. > [@](#): > > [FTR, I’m not up on the latest transgender-related terminology, so I don’t know the extent to which using “transgender” as a noun may be offensive to non-PC people these days. What I’m disputing is the general notion that just because people tell you something is offensive that means any future use can be assumed to be intended to be offensive.] I shared the GLAAD media guide link explaining proper terminology before on this board. IIRC people just dug in their heels and reacted along the lines of “why should I listen to this organization I never heard of? Show me a declaration signed by all member nations of the UN saying it’s offensive, and then I _might_ believe it!” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/53 "2017-08-06T00:21:13Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Bernie and Trump are hugely popular figures yet nobody saw fit to side with them on the issue. Something is off. Once again, the thing that’s off is assuming they are on the same side of the issue. Sanders: pro sanctions on Russia, pro Iran nuclear deal Trump: mostly anti sanctions on Russia, mostly anti Iran nuclear deal Sanders voted against the bill ONLY because he thought it jeopardized the Iran nuclear deal. Which I have to say, is probably a fair point. I think Republicans, especially Trump, are seeking to undermine the deal without having to directly take the heat for pulling out of it. > [@](#): > > “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.” ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/54 "2017-08-06T23:41:18Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yet they will ask “How High?” when Trump says “Jump.” > > This all sounds great, but in practice, they will do whatever he tells them to. You mean like this ban, which ALL branches of the military have done NOTHING to comply? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/55 "2017-08-07T00:16:19Z")
OP, being an anti-interventionist American is like being an anti-sacrifice Aztec. Americans aren’t anti-war, they’re anti-losing. I don’t think explaining that power structures use performative wokeness as a figleaf for their cruelty will be productive here. This board is the same demo that would think “more women guards!” is sexist. Speaking of transgender folks and the security state, have you ever followed [Chelsea Manning’s Twitter?](https://twitter.com/xychelsea?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) She constantly posts anti-police state and anti-prison messages filled with [rainbows and smiley faces.](https://twitter.com/my2k/status/893962054498795520) This is even funnier when an angry liberal shows up who wants to throw her in a cage and torture her for airing the government’s dirty laundry. She broke da rules!! > [@SteveG1](#): > > The Russians, by direction of Putin interefered with our voter registrations, ginned up stories about “33,000 emails” or some such bullshit, flooded the media with false “news stories”, etc etc etc. Damn right they interfered. America constantly interferes in other country’s internal politics, including Russia’s after the collapse of the USSR, and to a much greater extent than spreading disinfo, handing out sacks of cash, or noodling around with targeted social media bots, so should the rest of the world have put sanctions on America like 200 years ago, or nah? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/56 "2017-08-07T01:46:02Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Once again, the thing that’s off is assuming they are on the same side of the issue. > > Sanders: pro sanctions on Russia, pro Iran nuclear deal > Trump: mostly anti sanctions on Russia, mostly anti Iran nuclear deal > > Sanders voted against the bill ONLY because he thought it jeopardized the Iran nuclear deal. Which I have to say, is probably a fair point. I think Republicans, especially Trump, are seeking to undermine the deal without having to directly take the heat for pulling out of it. Ok so why didn’t more Democrats vote against the bill on the same ground as Sanders? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/57 "2017-08-07T19:51:19Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > OP, being an anti-interventionist American is like being an anti-sacrifice Aztec. Americans aren’t anti-war, they’re anti-losing. > > I don’t think explaining that power structures use performative wokeness as a figleaf for their cruelty will be productive here. This board is the same demo that would think “more women guards!” is sexist. > > Speaking of transgender folks and the security state, have you ever followed [Chelsea Manning’s Twitter?](https://twitter.com/xychelsea?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) She constantly posts anti-police state and anti-prison messages filled with [rainbows and smiley faces.](https://twitter.com/my2k/status/893962054498795520) This is even funnier when an angry liberal shows up who wants to throw her in a cage and torture her for airing the government’s dirty laundry. She broke da rules!! > > America constantly interferes in other country’s internal politics, including Russia’s after the collapse of the USSR, and to a much greater extent than spreading disinfo, handing out sacks of cash, or noodling around with targeted social media bots, so should the rest of the world have put sanctions on America like 200 years ago, or nah? Considering the tin pot dictators we installed or propped up, and clusterfucks WE have caused or made worse, maybe they should ??? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2017, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733/58 "2017-08-07T20:25:26Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Ok so why didn’t more Democrats vote against the bill on the same ground as Sanders? I can’t say for sure. Maybe they saw that the only way to get effective sanctions on Russia was to worry about the possible, but not certain, threat to the Iran deal later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanders-and-paul-against-sanctions/792733.md?page=2)