page as many of us are out here in America!

Mahalo, pnwmom

Some people who think we should only talk about policies don't seem to understand this.

they'll spring it if they have to if he somehow gets the nomination.

It won't be pretty.

will be just the opposite.

his populists do all too well. Sanders has struck me for a long time as like an aptitude test for understanding what good character is and/or for considering it a positive in a candidate.

Lawrence Tribe is hardly the only voice questioning Sanders' integrity. Most voters will eventually note the big questions about Sanders' character and judgment that're not being quashed this time around. And the role he played in 2016 and threatens again.

Unless the Republicans and Russia do a really magnificent job this time and Democrats all go hide under our beds on once the primaries start, though, I don't think there's the slightest chance Sanders could become our nominee.

using it all over the place!

a thin skinned moron. He's 100% correct.

Follow the votes on Russia and guns! Then when you couple that with the russian support, etc., it doesn't look good. I'm sorry this sounds harsh but we have to vet NOW not March 2020.

his vote FOR the Crime Bill...not a good look and the RW folks will wipe the floor with the allegations.

and that better include Olde Time Media

His wife was cleared of criminal wrong doing in the Burlington land deal for the school.
A lot of stuff was gone through in 2016.

He has a tax return problem that he needs to clear up. He's probably hiding something not so nice.

But what else is out there he has to clear up?

My concern is with his Democratic Socialist label - which I don't have a problem with - but I worry what the GOP will do with that. Hope he's up to winning that debate in the eyes of Independents and some in the GOP.

Last edited Wed Apr 3, 2019, 11:37 PM - Edit history (2)

about the socialist label. It helps him with some young people, who think it's cool, but turns off a lot of older people -- who are much more reliable voters.

https://vtdigger.org/2016/07/15/sanders-campaign-millions-go-to-mystery-firm/

National news organizations have reported on Old Towne, but the stories have raised more questions than answers.

Maggie Haberman, a New York Times political reporter, tweeted about the firm in February, writing “Sanders’ filings have a listing for ‘Old Towne Media,’ which received more than $10 mill (sic) for what appears to be ad buying. No idea who owns the firm and email to Sanders team has gone unanswered.”

The Washington Post wrote about Old Towne’s profits in the spring. Several bloggers have asked questions about how a small company with so little experience landed such lucrative work. A Slate piece this week described the company as “a black box” and a “front company.”

Political media buys are disclosed in Federal Communications Commission reports filed by television stations. VTDigger reviewed hundreds of Sanders media contracts. Shelli Hutton-Hartig’s frequently signed off on the buys, as did Barbara Abar Bougie, her longtime media partner.

I forgot about that.

As I vaguely recall, it came down to 'what happened to the 15% commission from placing the ads?". I think it came down to Devine's company getting $4.x mil for video productions and the people at Old Towne Media got the other half.

That doesn't answer it completely or satisfactorily but it killed the notion someone was bagging tens of millions.

I agree that there should be full disclosure. That shouldn't be a problem for someone with nothing to hide. It may be that Jane got paid something. She got $30,000 in 2006 I think but after people dug into it and made a big stink which they don't want to go through again. It seemed legit.

Who knows?

No one took sanders seriously and so he was not vetted. Vetting is important I amso glad that sanders is being vetted this cycle https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/28/why-bernie-sanders-has-an-uphill-climb-ahead/?utm_term=.1b4f90c2a717

David Brock & the Blue Nation Review? Remember that?
Sanders suffered a pretty nasty hit job in Nevada (though I felt that was more distorting his record than vetting)
etc.

I don't know that he's been vetted for "everything" - no one ever is.

But like I say, he's been vetted more than most of the candidates. He must come clean on his tax returns. After that, the dirt we don't already know is more likely slim.

Compare his vetting to:
Kamala Harris
Pete Buttigieg
Elizabeth Warren
Beto O'Rouke
etc

There were volumes of articles on Bernie's past during the 2016 campaign. Aside from Joe Biden, I probably know more about Bernie Sanders than the rest of the candidates put together. I still like Bernie and would support him without a shred of hesitation if he's chosen. But there have been a lot of folk rummaging through his garbage long before now.

I like nearly all of our candidates.

Sanders was a very weak candidate who was never vetted. The Clinton campaign treated Sanders with kid gloves because sanders had no chance in the real world of being the nominee. The press did not vet sanders because sanders was such a weak candidate and it would have been a waste of their time Sanders was not vetted and was in fact treated with kid gloves by the Clinton campaign VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

afraid to use or tell us about? Why the BIG secret?

Show us how knowledgeable and credible you really are:
Specifically, what dastardly things does this Hans Christian Anderson oppo research contain?
Park the spin and innuendo. Just the legitimate facts, please.
You are smearing the guy with unsubstantiated rumors - which is what the GOP does.
We should be operating on the basis of substance - things we can back up.

The article you linked says "I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. "
Once again, allegations of the potential sneak attacks that we must fear but no one to provide any details with evidence - trying to make us afraid of this candidate with the unknown that nobody can establish exists.

Going along with that garbage is not right for any candidate. Please stop it. Don't get sucked in.

After 47 years, if stuff hasn't popped up, you have to wonder if it ever will.

It can happen, with any candidate at any time. But a guy who has been in the public eye for 47 years? It's far less likely.

No one ever cared what sanders thought before this cycle. The man has passed no meaningful legislation and no one bother to vet him. The Clinton campaign treated him with kid gloves and the press only gave him one serious interview where sanders came off badly.

Link to tweet

Wall Street cannot continue to be an island unto itself, gambling trillions in risky financial decisions while expecting the public to bail it out.

It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in the country.

The six largest financial institutions in this country today hold assets equal to about 60% of the nation’s gross domestic product. These six banks issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards and over 35% of all mortgages. They control 95% of all derivatives and hold more than 40% of all bank deposits in the United States.

We must break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions. Those institutions received a $700 billion bailout from the US taxpayer, and more than $16 trillion in virtually zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve. Despite that, financial institutions made over $152 billion in profit in 2014 – the most profitable year on record, and three of the four largest financial institutions are 80% bigger today than they were before we bailed them out. ?

Our banking system must be part of the productive, job-creating economy. The Federal Reserve, a government entity which serves as the engine of the banking industry, must eliminate its internal conflicts of interest, provide stricter oversight, and insist that the banks serve the economy in a way that works for everyone, not just a few.

If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.

These institutions have acquired too much economic and political power, endangering our economy and our political process.

KEY ACTIONS
Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities.
Led the fight in 1999 defending Glass-Steagall provisions which prevented banks (especially “too big to fail” ones) from gambling with customers’ money, and currently is a co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill to reinstate those provisions.
Has proposed a financial transaction tax which will reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation; proceeds would be used to provide debt-free public college education.
Is co-sponsoring Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s bill to end Wall Street’s practice of paying big bonuses to bank executives who take senior-level government jobs.
Introduced a tax on Wall Street speculation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free
Supports capping credit card interest rates at 15%.
Sponsored an amendment calling for an audit the Federal Reserve. The audit found that far more had been spent in the Wall Street bailout than previously disclosed, and that considerable funds had been spent to bail out foreign corporations.
Warned about the risks of deregulation eight years before the fiscal crisis of 2008.
Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions

Hillary Clinton has long stood up to Wall Street – going back to her time as New York Senator, when she warned against abuses nearly a year before the crisis hit. While Senator Sanders pushes proposals scrutinized as unachievable and lacking detail beyond a slogan, Clinton has the strongest, most comprehensive plan to tackle risks on Wall Street and in the financial sector. As president, she would:

Defend Dodd-Frank against Republican attacks.
Impose a risk fee on the largest financial institutions and a tax on high-frequency trading.
Require firms that are too risky to manage to reorganize or even break apart.
Strengthen the Volcker Rule.
Strengthen oversight of the “shadow banking” system to reduce risk.
Hold individuals, not just corporations, accountable when they break the law, including through criminal prosecution.
Ensure that the financial sector serves the interests of investors and consumers, not just itself.
Slow the revolving door between the financial industry and government financial regulators.

sanders is a very weak candidate. There s a ton of good oppo that will be used against sanders. The Clinton campaign treated sanders with kid gloves because sanders was mathematically eliminated by Super Tuesday

You can't back up your claims.

I don't believe a word you are saying.

That's denial based upon the lack of evidence you have provided.

It's a simple concept most folks can grasp.

sanders is not electable in the real world. There is a ton of damaging oppo on sanders that has already come out and more to come. I am really amused by sanders supporters who ignore the real world and the fact.

If you want some facts, here are some amusing facts and polling from the Washington Post.

Link to tweet

we have a crowded field of candidates right now which can help bernie win the nomination. He is the only one who has large commited voter base. No one else does, they’d have to build one first. Think of it as gop primary in 2016, trump didnt even need 30% of the vote to win. Bernie is much more popular among dems than trump was among gop voters back then. We need to use the oppo research on him right now before he gains any more voters. I know Bloomberg hates BS very much, why wouldn’t he fund campaign against him right now - much cheaper and more effective than running himself as independent.

I will support the nominee of the party but I doubt that sanders will be the nominee. There are too many real democrats who have long memories and who do not forgive or forget

Looks very clearly like a loss of consciousness event. I know the "official" story - but unless he hit that shower door while riding at about 20mph in a sidecar without a helmet - or he's on SERIOUS anti-coagulants - I ain't buyin'

Forget his taxes (not really) what we really need to see is a detailed medical report, imo.

Link to tweet

I was not aware of this. It was absolutely disgusting. We need more of these videos play now for dems to see. Trump will destroy him in Reagan 80 landslide fashion.
No wonder BS has highest support among the youngesr voters - they are not as familiar with communism and socialism.

If sanders is the nominee, trump may win 45+ states

This is not a bad group of candidates. I can see something worthy in each of them.
They are all better than Trump, so 'better than Trump' isn't good enough to set Sanders ahead.

Need I point out how he refers to his own campaign?

Just - no.

They wanted to make sure that the press wouldn't look the other way and/or miss the story this time around if there were to be a repeat of the pervasive predatory culture, discrimination, harassment, and sexual violence on the BS campaign.

If Sanders had been the nominee, Trump would have destroyed him. Trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

in Florida - way, way before the 2016 campaign. I posted the NYT article on it on this site.

Their oppo research on Hillary would probably fill a small library - way, way more than four books.

There is oppo research being done by the GOP right now on all our leading candidates.

And they'll sit on it until it serves them well.

I don't think four books on Bernie is much of a yardstick. It's peanuts compared to Hillary.

We cannot shake in our boots because the GOP have oppo research. They'll have it on whoever is nominated.

Bernie started running for public office 47 years ago. Convince the class that nobody tried to vet him through his years successfully running for office as Mayor of Burlington, in his run for the House of Representatives as an independent (first one to successfully do it in 40 years) going against Republicans and Democrats and through his years in the Senate as an independent going against Republicans and Democrats and in 2016, when he made a heck of a run against Hillary.

The notion he hasn't been significantly vetted after 47 years of running for public office is just shear nonsense.

I have seen a great deal of oppo on sanders and it will be used during the primaries. Most real democrats know that sanders is unelectable and that trump would destroy sanders. For example, this is very telling

Link to tweet

What is wrong with you? Why would you to try to compare numbers of "very uncomfortable" when others down the list have large unknowns? Are you sure you can truly comprehend what these reports are telling you when you can't see something as obvious as that flaw in your reasoning?

Among the candidates who have been polled by a few outfits vs Trump, Bernie is second behind Biden

Biden v Trump +8.7
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Sanders v Trump +4.3
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

Harris v Trump +3.0
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_harris-6252.html

O'Rouke v Trump +2.0
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_orourke-6766.html

Warren v Trump +2.0
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_warren-6251.html

How come these other candidates are not clobbering Bernie in these polls if Bernie is as bad as you suggest? Once again, the polling facts establish you are just offering spin and rumor.
These polls are a little fairer but they also suffer some from lack of candidate awareness.

Bernie raised the largest war chest of all of them this quarter by far
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/03/heres-what-the-2020-democratic-candidates-raised-in-the-first-quarter.html
Sanders also had another $14 million available for use from previous campaign fund-raising
Sanders has as much cash on hand as the next four who reported campaign money. $6 mil of Beto's $9 mil money came from his previous campaign apparently.

520,000 Sanders supporters are putting their money where their votes are. Again, how can you reconcile that with your claims? You can't with facts. All you're offering is spin/BS.

Pretty hard to reconcile those results with your innuendo and a cherry picked poll that is interpreted poorly.

With his fund raising ability, Sanders will be able to handle whatever oppo research comes his way as well as anyone financially and he'll have the funds to counter punch if he has to.

Those are real facts.

In the real world, such high negatives mean that you are unelectable. I like living in the real world where numbers matter. trump has a ton of oppo to drive sanders' negatives even higher without any significant amount of work.

sanders will not be the nominee and if sanders is the nominee, trump will pick 45+ states. sanders is not electable in the real world and no amount of advertising will help. Remember sanders out spent Clinton 2 to 1 in New York and California and still got crushed.

Link to tweet

"I am amused that sanders supporters seem to think that sanders has this nomination locked up"

I haven't seen that. Again, the challenge is to present the facts - not fairy tales. Where are you making that up from?

There is oppo research going to drop on all the candidates. Just more noise from you with no substance behind it.

In terms of support from blacks, Bernie was up against the family described by some as the first black president. That was an uphill battle.

This time around might be different if his civil rights story gets fairly told. Then again, if he's up against Kamala or Cory as we get down to it, he'll have a problem making inroads.

But against Trump, 83% of Blacks Support Sanders vs 6% Trump. Don't see a problem.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/PPP_Release_National_40119.pdf

Sanders is second to Biden among non-Whites in this poll (some candidates suffering lack of exposure). Trump is very negative in approval of non-Whites
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-3-24-201 9
Up against Trump, support of non-Whites is not going to be a big problem.

To start where he did in 2016, Sanders made a remarkable run in what should have been a simple coronation.

Bernie Sanders’s Hard Fight for Hillary Clinton
https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton

Even your spin there is nonsense.

25% of Puma supporters supposedly voted for McCain in 2008. That wasn't Hillary's fault.

10% of Sanders supporters supposedly voted for Trump. That wasn't Bernie's fault.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

Link to tweet

"Then again, if he's up against Kamala or Cory as we get down to it, he'll have a problem making inroads. "

Without support from African American voters, sanders will not be the nominee

Sanders’s support among black voters, at 28 percent, puts him in second place among that demographic, behind Biden, at 32 percent.

Again has any non whites attended any of sanders events in the real world? There are contests where people scan the crowds at sanders events looking for non white faces. It is really amusing

Let’s look at how sanders did in South Carolina

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

was handcuffed arrested and dragged away while protesting stacked up against a freshmen Senator named Biden about a decade later. One of Biden' first efforts was to fight against desegregation.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bidens-tough-talk-on-1970s-school-desegregation-plan-could-get-new-scrutiny-in-todays-democratic-party/2019/03/07/9115583e-3eb2-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html
"

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) is pictured in December 1972, a month after he was elected to the Senate. (Bettmann Archive)
By Matt Viser March 7
When Joe Biden was a freshman senator in the mid-1970s, his home state of Delaware, like other hotspots across the country, was engulfed in a bitter battle over school busing, debating whether children should be sent to schools in different neighborhoods to promote racial diversity.

Biden took a lead role in the fight, speaking out repeatedly and forcefully against sending white children to majority-black schools and black children to majority-white schools. He played down the persistence of overt racism and suggested that the government should have a limited role in integration.
A quote:
“I do not buy the concept, popular in the ’60s, which said, ‘We have suppressed the black man for 300 years and the white man is now far ahead in the race for everything our society offers. In order to even the score, we must now give the black man a head start, or even hold the white man back, to even the race,’ ” Biden told a Delaware-based weekly newspaper in 1975. “I don’t buy that.”

He added, “I don’t feel responsible for the sins of my father and grandfather. I feel responsible for what the situation is today, for the sins of my own generation. And I’ll be damned if I feel responsible to pay for what happened 300 years ago.”

Why is it every time a discussion comes up about Sanders' "civil rights" record, one always hearkens back to Chicago when he was in College? That was the 1960s.

What did he do in the 1970s?
What did he do in the 1980s?
What did he do in the 1990s?
What did he do in the 2000s?

What has he even done in recent years?

that time he voted for Jesse Jackson.... ....But then again he wanted someone to primary President Obama.

Senator Sanders is supposed to have fought for civil rights for African Americans, but refused to vote against white supremacists? Real civil rights heroes were beaten, maimed and killed fighting for the right to vote. By his own admission, Senator Sanders didn't vote until he himself was on the ballot, which was in the '70s at the earliest - which means he didn't vote in 1968 when Nixon and Wallace were on the ballot. And he only voted for himself. I wonder if that is a habit he has continued? Does he still only bother to vote for himself?

and in 1964 - the two Congresses that gave us the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Right Act! He didn't bother to use his white privilege* to vote for progressive legislators!


*With his Jewish ethnicity, there is of course grounds to discuss whether Senator Sanders has full white privilege, but with his name and the fact that he wasn't a practicing Jew, he would have had no problems passing as someone completely white.

For someone to bring up Bernie’s cup of coffee in the civil rights movement. I guess that’s progress, eh?

To most non-Bernie bros and non-JPR posters, Cenk is a joke. Hint, I stopped paying attention to Cenk a very long time ago and do not consider him to be a credible source.

Cenk is attacking an African American commentator because it is clear to most people in the real world that sanders will not be the nominee due to a lack of African American support. Mr. Sellers have some great views on sanders including that it was wrongt for sanders to say that it was okay for his white voters to not vote for African American candidates in Florida and Georgia.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

...denied the Armenian genocide where 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered.

... and when I say "work", what I really mean is "shit". He's truly beneath contempt. And his history, his associations, his denials... none of that reflects very well on the judgement or standards of his fan-base either.

that his honesty, judgement, and reliability are secondary.

I think that's called confirmation bias.

Link to tweet

the bogus notion he has a terrible problem with blacks and the polls that back him up.- some of which I already linked.

It was a convenient way to save some typing.
His explanation is grounded in facts and not unreasonable.