If i lived in US i would probably be a Bernie voter(in theory, in this election would have been Hillary), but i can't really approve of that cancer medication vote. If i understood correctly he voted no due to some price shenanigans. Seems far more pragmatic to at least allow treatment first at the very least, i have a hard time believing congress or even the public would push price regulation outside of some bizarro world.
Symbolic procedure/legislation deserves symbolic votes. Especially when it's going to be unanimous otherwise. And even more so if it's being used as cover.
How many more people know that the Senate* "Russian sanctions bill" (that contained no new sanctions against Russia) that Rand and Sanders alone voted against a month or whenever ago was actually an extension of sanctions
against Iran (which around ten
other Senators had originally opposed before the amendment) that Senate bipartisan leadership tacked on some toothless words about Russia to? Not enough to mean anything, but more than had they let the vote be unanimous.
Senators are the ones best positioned to do this kind of opposition on principle and gain awareness for it. And when it's an opportunity where something is happening no matter their consent or not, all the better to not throw another vote on top.
*The eventual version Trump signed this week from conference was a combined Russia/Iran/North Korea (another later addition!) set of sanctions.
