Vetting Bernie: A Resource of The People's View in Regard to the Candidacy of Bernie Sanders.

[Nuggets]

Here, you will find an archive of the work that The People’s View authors have compiled over the last 4 years. These articles are thoroughly sourced, using hundreds of links to reputable online sources.


This information is all publicly available; we have no investigatory journalists nor access to inside information. Much of what the authors have written about has been public knowledge, especially in Sanders’ home state of Vermont.


However, the mainstream media has time and time again chosen to ignore Sanders’ record in favor of creating a horse race in 2016 and keeping Sanders around for the “Democrats in Disarray” talking point since the 2016 election. The authors of this site have released this information today as once again, Bernie Sanders seems intent on working against the Democratic Party for his own personal gain in very much the same way he did in 2015.

We encourage everyone who cares about not only the Democratic Party but the country as a whole to share this article far and wide. Our media has not learned anything from 2016 but the more we, the people, have access to this information the more likely it is that Sanders’ candidacy fails to get off the ground. We cannot afford to have Bernie Sanders once again infiltrate the Democratic Party to inject his own personal vendetta as a way to undermine the party. It is through the sharing of information that we, as the voting public, can have the final say as to whether or not Bernie Sanders has a voice in the 2020 presidential election. Those of us that truly know Bernie Sanders, know that he is unfit to lead. It is only through a resounding loss in 2020 that he will finally hear this message.]



https://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2019/2/10/7k3dyoonuniyqdaieidq9bgc3anmhl

[ucrdem]

1. Somebody didn't like this

but it looks okay to me.

[murielm99]

2. K&R.

[True Blue American]

11. No comment on th article

But anger is a complete turn off for me. I have heard enough in the last 3 years to last me a lifetime. I smpy turn it off. That is wh Je made such an ipression. I remembe well the hate spewed at Obama for 8 years. They will never get my vote, even if they manage to win.

I am being honest.

[LongtimeAZDem]

3. I do wonder why he voted to protect the Minuteman militia; that is disturnbing

[Tiggeroshii]

4. .

[Nuggets]

21. You think his support of Militia men is funny eh?

I don’t .

Sanders has a lot of explaining to do.

[Tiggeroshii]

23. I think contrived attacks with nothing to support it are harious

The same trope.

[Nuggets]

24. Contrived attacks with back up ?

Can’t refute his support of a militia group that has killed immigrants and is now playing vigilante at the border?

It’s getting out whether Sanders or his supporters like it or not.

[Tiggeroshii]

25. .

[Nuggets]

28. It's so funny when folks can't

beat the truth.

Nothing to say?
Lol! Maybe that rofl emoji will hide Bernie’s past?

My family and I are posting it everywhere. On FB on any political or news site that allows posting.
Bernie can’t do a thing to stop the truth from getting out it’s thoroughly backed up.

[Tiggeroshii]

31. .

[LanternWaste]

82. Laughing certainly beats "hanging out on street corners..."

Priorities, of course. Always priorities.

[SouthernProgressive]

80. Maybe they aren't trying to beat it.

Maybe they support it.

[progressoid]

63. And 76 other Democrats who voted for it?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml

[Nuggets]

70. Are they running for President?

Now explain Bernie’s oh -so-much more progressive than those Dems reason, instead of trying to deflect

None of Sanders supporters can explain that nor about his campaign funds we aren’t allowed to speak of on here
I get the usual deflection or logical fallacies

[progressoid]

72. I'm not a Sanders surrogate so I can't give you the explanation you don't actually want.

It's clear your question is rhetorical.

I'm sure you are asking the same critical questions about Biden's Iraq war vote, or his vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, or his support of the credit card companies over consumers in bankruptcy, or the "1994 Biden crime bill", or his war on drugs, or him calling Mike Pence, "a decent guy", etc. etc.

[Nuggets]

73. Yup I've asked about all of it.

My question isn’t rhetorical and , of course, STILL hasn’t been answered. All other questions or references have been removed by juries, like they have something to help him hide.

I even wrote a post here on using how using presentism against either Sanders or Biden or any candidate for that matter is simply wrong headed.


Too many hide behind “refighting the primaries” rules here when legitimate questions concerning his campaign funding are brought up, or his militia vote, his vote for military action in Iraq in 98, his vote for the 94 crime bill, his votes against gun control etc.

[progressoid]

77. Cool.

So you've "asked about all of it" and the Minuteman thing still remains a problem for you yet apparently Biden's crime bill/support for the war on drugs is okely dokely.

Today we have nearly a half million people incarcerated in America for drug offenses. Are the minutemen even a thing anymore?

[Nuggets]

78. Bernie voted for it too and his

excuse is lame considering black women were incarcerated at a high rate.
I remember what it was like back then. The constant accusations of Democrats being soft on crime, and it was costing us big time.

As I said, using presentism is foolish and wrongheaded (you neatly ignored that though)

Biden today wants to decriminalize Cannabis and reschedule it.
so he’s changed his mind and supports a moderate stance. He supports expunging the records of individuals with prior possession convictions and letting states set their own policies.



Perhaps you should keep up on the current news before commenting?

Armed Militia Rounding Up Migrants At Southern Border
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-19/armed-militia-rounding-migrants-southern-border

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/border-militia-mexico.html

[progressoid]

81. Heh heh heh.

You said:

As I said, using presentism is foolish and wrongheaded

While also saying:

Bernie voted for it too and his excuse is lame considering black women were incarcerated at a high rate.
I remember what it was like back then.

Do ya see the incongruity in your statements?

[Cha]

87. yes, BS is getting vetted.

[House of Roberts]

5. WTF?

[Author’s Note: The People’s View is a political blog in support of pragmatic, progressive, democratic ideals. We were formed during President Barack Obama’s presidency as a way to counter the narrative that President Obama wasn’t doing enough for liberal values and that he was selling out to corporate influence.

Why does their archive go all the way back to May 2004? Formed during Obama's presidency?

[JI7]

9. they supported Howard Dean in 2004

[True Blue American]

12. I supported Howard Dean

And Wesley Clark. Both would have been excellent choices.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. Howard Dean got screwed like no other candidate I've ever seen!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[brooklynite]

66. By...losing the Iowa Caucus?

The only thing that ruined the Howard Dean campaign was Howard Dean.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

67. No, by the media's handling of the "Dean scream" and subsequent treatment of his campaign.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[brooklynite]

68. ...which all happened AFTER his mediocre third place finish in Iowa...

...and his poor organizational structure (which I saw in person) in New Hampshire.

Blaming the media is an easy excuse; Dean never converted his rally crowds to actual voters.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

69. I'm not sayin Dean would've won the 2004 primary... just that he got screwed by the press coverage

after the "scream heard around the world" and never even had a chance after that.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[brooklynite]

71. And I'm saying he didn't have a chance BEFORE that...

As for the Dean Scream itself, if you'd like to hear a less conspiracy theory-laden discussion of what happened, try this:

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/howard-deans-scream-revisited (inlcudes Dean's perspective)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

74. Thanks... you missed my point, but, that's okay. nm

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!

[House of Roberts]

16. Then why not say that?

Why LIE about a little thing like that?

[lapucelle]

29. Do you have a link for that quote?

The founding date is 2005.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ThinkTPV/about/?ref=page_internal

[House of Roberts]

30. The quote is on the OP link page,

right under the article title.

Here's the TPV archive link, showing posts to May 2004.

https://www.thepeoplesview.net/archive

[lapucelle]

33. TPV gives its founding date as 2005. n/t

[LongtimeAZDem]

32. The blog probably just incorported an earlier one. Email them and ask.

[Autumn]

34. People View is Spandan Chakrabarti, a twice banned poster. He likes to sign up and flogg his

blog. Eventually always gets banned. Not entirely an Obama fan but is very very pragmatic. He seems to have rewritten his "about" to claim a different why and when part of his history.

https://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/epeoplesview.net/2007/10/obama-lost-my-vote-general-election-too.html
It looks like he later changed it to he's a believer and did vote for Obama

[Nuggets]

35. Instead of attacking the messenger

refute his findings. Or is it that you can’t refute and thus decided attacking his character was the best option to take the spotlight off of Bernie?

All I ever get is smilies and argumentum ad hominem comments.

Makes me so sad.



Care to comment on his support for militias?

[Autumn]

38. Facts are not attacks nuggets. The poster asked about that "blog" and I gave them a response.

I gave them the info as I know. I wouldn't bother to comment on spandans "writing". I find it hard to get through one of his pieces intact. But by all means... you continue on. As for things making you sad? Not to worry, I'm sure the longer you are here the more reasons you will find to be sad.

[Nuggets]

40. Nothing in those articles are attacks

They are the truth and while that may make you uncomfortable, Autumn, it doesn’t make them attacks.
He backs it all up with Documents from the FEC, articles from Washington Post and other credible sources.


You attack him because you can’t refute him

Again explain Sanders vote for the militia, if you can.😂


Maybe try another deflection, there are a host of logical fallacies to choose from OR you could simply answer the questions and honesty discuss Sanders past.

[Autumn]

43. The banned poster has a history here. If I wanted to discuss Bernie I would look for a thread

where I don't have to read a "blog" by a banned poster whose writing never impressed me.

[Nuggets]

44. See I knew you'd deflect.

Explain Bernies militia vote.

Can’t refute a word of his blog can you?

[revmclaren]

58. What is your opinion of the banned poster William Pitt

having his articles posted on DU?



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Autumn]

60. Spandan gets posted here often, by some of the same people who complain about Pitt

I'm not much on the "fine for me but not for thee bullcrap". I know whenever Pitt gets posted you're in those threads but you're fine with this one. Until the admins make a rule that they can't be posted then they can be posted.

[revmclaren]

61. Then I don't see the problem

With with the Spandan post since calling it out would be the highest level of hypocrisy.

So I guess all is good.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[revmclaren]

62. Strange...I only remember being in one or two

threads involving William (Obama is a POSUCS) Pitt posts. I even went into this link to see if I posted there but there are so many replies by members and banned members that I didn't see myself.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4734785

Please post links to my other appearances in these posts since I truely don't remember them and you seem so sure that you MUST have the links. Waiting in anticipation for the reminders. I'll be the first to admit you are right if you post them.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Autumn]

65. Here you go rev

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287120687#post72

Not going to bother looking for others, I will take you at your word. If you are only in a couple as you say then I was wrong to have said that. The fact is many of the same people always outraged that banned poster articles get posted are recommending and posting support for this banned poster . I call that hypocrisy.

[revmclaren]

79. Thanks for your response.

Linking to the current William (Obama is a POSUCS) Pitt post that I posted in a few days ago where I gave you the link to one of the old posts is a little strange but bravo for your amazing detective skills and even though I did say I may have been in one or two posts, I will bow to your 'superior' knowledge and admit you are right. But there still is a tiny problem of your stating that I was in EVERY William ( Obama is a POSUCS) Pitt post and my not remembering those posts you say I posted in bothers me. So I will take the duty upon myself to search for each and every one of those posts and I'll make a special Op, just for you, of my findings. Perhaps in my searches through the many and varried archived pages I will find other interesting pasts posts that will be politically relevant. I may even find some of your own old posts that you may have forgotten about and would find amusingly nastalgic. I definitely will let you know. This kills two birds with one stone since I had recently decided with all the Democrat bashing going on these days and the real fear of a repeat of the 2016 GENERAL ELECTION (where many claimed the election was stolen by the DNC), that I would look for and maybe find old posts claiming this and posts praising WikiLeaks and grucifer 2.0. Thank you for the opportunity to settle my mind about my memories AND kickstart my project. I'm sure I have your blessings.

Have a great day.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Cha]

54. No worries, Nuggets.. "the messenger" always

gets "attacked" when facts are brought forth about BS.

You did a Good thing! Shine the Light!

[LongtimeAZDem]

47. Somebody who spoke ill of Bernie Sanders got banned? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

[Autumn]

48. A lot of posters who have spoken ill of Democrats and their allies have been banned.

I find the reaction to posts about the writings of those different people to be funny. oh by the way. Spandan was banned long before Bernie Sanders was accepted here on DU by the admins.

[LongtimeAZDem]

50. That doesn't change the fact that Sanders voted to protect fascist militias on the AZ border

Which was the point of the OP, and is easily verified.

[Autumn]

51. I really don't know or care what the OP is about. I don't read past the People View. nt

[LongtimeAZDem]

52. Of course you don't. I expected nothing else.

[Autumn]

53. Happy I didn't disappoint you. Trashing OP and thread

[Nuggets]

75. Not like those who tell the truth about Sanders

Any truthful negative Sanders post draws in a flock of his supporters who either try to change the subject or try to rile up the poster of said negative post in an attempt to elicit a response that can be removed as “Dem bashing” or “refighting the primaries”. They need to shut us up. Need and that raises eyebrows.


It’s not difficult to see. I’ve read here for months before I ever posted and watched it all happen again and again.

[Cha]

55. lol.. yeah..

no kidding

[Cha]

6. KR.. Thanks for

posting.

[tishaLA]

7. Thanks for the excellent resource n/t

[SunSeeker]

8. K & R & Bookmarked.

[GeniusJoy]

10. He voted for border vigilante Militia?

I had not known that before, Thank you!

[Nuggets]

36. Sickening isn't it? nt

[Cha]

89. Yes he did.

[Thekaspervote]

13. Thx for sharing!! Everyone should read it

[LibFarmer]

14. I enjoyed the article

It is a great compilation of vetting points.

Thanks for posting.

[Hortensis]

15. I don't see TPV often, but the articles I have seen were checked

and factually accurate. They usually enlarged on things I'd observed myself or reported what I was reading in other, often major investigatory sources.

[Vidal]

17. Good Resource

Some of these items should be discussed more thoroughly.

[Nuggets]

22. Sanders supporters won't allow that

and the rules here protect him from any real vetting. TPV is an excellent source for information all backed with links to credible articles or the actual documents from the FEC etc.

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. This thread was apparently already alerted; glad to see it survived.

[Nuggets]

37. Yeah I figured it would be.

It’s why I simply posted the articles with no comment.

[NYMinute]

18. Great compilation of vetting points

Some of the issues mentioned are not "progressive" at all and are downright disqualifying.

[MH1]

19. I wouldn't say that I "truly" know Sanders, but I damn sure know he is unfit to lead.

This from a betrayed primary voter for Sanders in 2016.

A primary election candidate doesn't support - really support - the nominated candidate in the general? Then Fuck. Off. That is my message to Sanders.

If he were a true progressive AND leader, he would have reflected on his own contribution to the disaster that is currently occurring in our country, and realized that running again would only recreate the divisiveness. If he has any leadership talents, they would have been better applied to helping another candidate who shares many of his views, without trying to divide the party. (*cough* Warren *cough*) But, no. No leadership to be found in that ego.

[pandr32]

26. Last paragraph is right on!

[calimary]

41. I think he let that "I feel like a rock star" thing go to his head.

[Cha]

56. Exactly.. well said, MH.

[revmclaren]

20. K & R...

for a great vetting article.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[calimary]

39. I doubt a resounding loss in 2020 would get through to him.

He’ll probably keep on trying to be a spoiler for as long as he draws breath.

[Nuggets]

42. Likely.

He seems to absolutely love the spotlight.

[BannonsLiver]

49. You can "sell" a lot of books, apparently.

[BannonsLiver]

45. Great post!

Even though one of Sanders’ supporters responding in the thread supports militias apparently (Cuz Bernie!1) I think it’s important Bernie never gets anywhere near the nomination. Resources like this help with that.

[revmclaren]

59. Kicking again

to keep this thread going.

ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Cha]

64. Mahalo, Rev!

I'll try to do my part



Definitely Bookmarked!

[Gothmog]

76. No one took sanders seriously in 2016 and so sanders was not vetted

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

Finally, what happens when the oppo dump on Sanders comes? We have no idea, because it never happened in 2016. Clinton was so terrified of alienating his supporters and seeing them vote for Jill Stein in the general election (or not vote at all) that she tiptoed around him for pretty much the entirety of the primary campaign. That doesn’t mean that he’ll be destroyed when stories about the more colorful aspects of his history start cropping up, but there’s just no way to know.

Which is what we could say about the Sanders candidacy as a whole: There’s no way to know how it’s going to go. But he’s got his work cut out for him.

See also https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/bernie-sanders-2020-campaign-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_content=2019-02-20T14%3A52%3A07&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social%C2%A0

2. How will he withstand more scrutiny and more attacks?
One of the secrets to Sanders' success in 2016 was that no one -- most especially Clinton -- thought he had any chance of going anywhere in the race. Clinton largely ignored him for the better part of 2015, allowing some problematic parts of Sanders' record for Democrats -- most notably his voting record on guns -- to go unnoticed. (When the race began to tighten, Clinton gently prodded Sanders on guns and health care.) Sanders, too, largely flew under the radar of investigative reporters for major news outlets who were busy looking into Clinton, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others seen as more viable candidates. (That reality clearly benefited Donald Trump in the early days of the campaign, as well.)

Sanders will get no pass -- from either the media or his fellow candidates -- this time around. He is among the frontrunners -- and will be treated as such. His wife's time as president of Burlington College could well come up. And his opponents will do a deep dive into his nearly 30 years of votes as a member of the House and Senate. This is all very normal stuff in a campaign. But not for Sanders.

There is a ton of strong opposition research out there that will come out this cycle

[Cha]

83. Mahalo, Goth!

[Gothmog]

84. Mahalo, Cha

[Cha]

85. KICK!

[Cha]

86. Here's some Vetting BS on guns and the non Russian votes..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Voted Against the Brady Bill 5 times.
Voted to have guns on Amtrak
Voted to have guns in national parks

Link to tweet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=102663

[Cha]

88. KICK!