Discussion in 'US Politics' started by Frank Underwood, Jun 27, 2019.
1st 2019 Dem Primary Debate Breakdown
Ridiculous Moments From The 1st Dem Primary Debate Of 2019
Glad to hear Tulsi Gabbard did well. I haven't had time to watch this debate but will shortly. Hopefully this exposure helps her campaign.
It looks like it has. Fox News of all places had this headline: "Gabbard was most searched Democratic candidate after debate despite getting third-lowest speaking time."
Of course, that hasn't stopped establishment shills and the corporate media from continuing to claim diplomacy and social democracy are scary and evil.
I think you'll like this video of Tulsi Gabbard going after war monger Tim Ryan.
Good video! Fox News does give her good coverage unlike most other networks as I saw she was interviewed by Tucker Carlson the other day.
Odd as it may sound I think the best interviews she's had has been on Joe Rogan's show. They've been more casual and lengthy interviews.
Sounds like Kamala Harris will be one of the names on the ticket.
I hope not. The fact that she has the approval and support of the corporate media and the Democratic establishment is enough of a reason for me not to support her. She's a faux progressive who changed her answer on abolishing private health insurance, stating she "misheard" the debate question. As a prosecutor, she came down hard on drug offenses and truancy, but let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off for foreclosure violations. She's a woman of color who does the bidding of the establishment, which is why they love her.
If her critique of Biden at the debate helps end his campaign like many pundits are claiming, I'll give her kudos for that. But she still has a lot to answer for herself.
1st 2019 Dem Primary Debate Breakdown (Night 2)
Re: “She's a faux progressive who changed her answer on abolishing private health insurance, stating she ‘misheard’ the debate question.”
Did you hear the debate question? If I’m not mistaken, it went: “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favour of a government-run plan, just a show of hands.”
You don’t put “abolish” and “(your) private health insurance” in the same sentence unless you want to sow confusion – which is why some folk called it a trick question, and which may be why Mr Biden didn’t immediately raise his hand; and when he did, he raised it only a little ways, so the possibility exists that he was only trying to get the attention of the mods for clarification rather than half-heartedly responding to the debate question.
My understanding is that Ms Harris registered the question as asking if she would get rid of her own private health insurance in favour of a government run plan and she answered accordingly. I think anyone in the media or out of it not acknowledging the ambiguity in the debate question and not giving Kamala Harris the benefit of the doubt is pursuing their own smear campaign.
In an interview on Friday, the day after the 2nd night of the debate, Ms Harris said the question (she heard) was “Would you give up your private insurance for that option and I said ‘Yes’”. She was then asked in Friday’s interview if she believed that private insurance should be eliminated in the US, and she replied “No.”
She went on to say “I am a proponent of Medicare for All. Private insurance will exist for supplemental coverage, but under my vision of Medicare for All we will expand coverage so that it would include dental, it would include vision, it would include hearing aids, which is a big issue for our seniors and is an extremely expensive.
“Also this, the insurance companies for years have been putting millions of dollars into an advertising campaign and a lobbyist campaign that is trying to convince American families ‘You need your insurance company to have your doctor.’ Well that’s a myth and a fallacy. Ninety-one per cent of the doctors in America are in Medicare, so you will not lose your doctor.
“And, the other piece of it is this example I gave last night. Do you know how many people in America are afraid to walk into an emergency room or a hospital room or a doctor’s office because they are looking at a US$5,000 deductible? It’s because the insurance companies keep jacking up costs around premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
“And then, let’s talk about pharmaceutical companies I have taken on as attorney general (of California). I took on the pharmaceutical companies and I won. And I will tell you that part of what we need to do to reform the healthcare system is (to) bring down costs. When we have everybody who wants this Medicare for All, we can negotiate against the pharmaceutical companies as a group and we can also diminish the power that insurance companies have had to make decisions about what kind of health care you get instead of your doctor making those decisions.”
Re: her coming down hard on drug offenses and truancy as a prosecutor but let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off for foreclosure violations.
In the old debate about being soft on crime or being hard on crime in criminal justice policy, Ms Harris came down on the side of being hard on crime during her career as a prosecutor. But she also come around to saying, and is still saying, “let’s be smart about crime and recognize that the goal should be about public safety, and one of the best ways to achieve it is to deal with prevention first instead of reaction by incarcerating people”.
As for the CEO of OneWest, I read that Ms Harris’s office did not have the evidence against Mr Mnuchin that was necessary for a criminal indictment.
And, in other related housing matters, I read that Ms Harris authored the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, which among other things outlawed the very practice that allowed OneWest to cheat homeowners; and that she and some aides helped secure a total of US$20 billion + in direct assistance to victims of foreclosure in California. (2013 Mortgage Relief in California: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/mortgage_settlement/04-report-by-the-numbers.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2QyUtIxTUV542nrg2nDqDxbI7iG3gjfGBG9D9mjWHeua6BoL6rN9tJhj8 )
Specifically about Mr Mnuchin and the foreclosure violations, here’s an extract of an excerpt:
“On the OneWest issue, it’s a misnomer (ie, lie) that Harris “didn’t prosecute Mnuchin.” He was never under investigation, and Harris didn’t receive a referral to criminally prosecute anyone. What she got was a recommendation to file a civil enforcement action against OneWest. In such a filing, no one person is accused of anything. Instead, an entire company is looked at, and perhaps fined for wrongdoing.
So why didn’t she file the action? Well, Senator Harris isn’t exactly free to openly discuss that, because we don’t openly discuss investigations. It’s not appropriate to discuss partial evidence, suspicions, or rumors. This harms the party under investigation, who has a right to a presumption of innocence.
But the reasons this didn’t go anywhere are likely far simpler. The civil enforcement action requested by the consumer law division would have potentially fined OneWest in order to encourage them to fix their internal issues. Those fines would have been entirely passed on to shareholders. Sen. Harris likely saw no reason to invest time and energy in pursuing fines to be levied on people already losing their shirts, just so that OneWest would be encouraged to shape up, when the recession was ensuring banks were going to be forced to do that anyway.
Re: She's a woman of color who does the bidding of the establishment, which is why they love her.
Frankly, that’s a shit soundbite.
Many pundits are into hyperbole. If Mr Biden keeps coming off as appearing to others too defensive of his record and insensitive and too gentlemanly for today’s 2020 political landscape, then he will only have himself to answer for where that takes him.
Nobody wants a crisis with a popular leader in the White House.
Mr Sanders, I think, needs to take better care of his health. I wonder how many of his supporters will not vote in the 2020 US general election if he has a heart attack or stroke or whatever and has to drop out of the race.
This isn't the first time she's misheard or misspoke on the issue of Medicare for all. The same thing happened at a town hall in January, in which she said she would eliminate private health insurance. Bernie Sanders's Medicare for all plan also calls for keeping private insurance for supplemental coverage. However, unlike Sanders, Harris "would also be open to the more moderate health reform plans, which would preserve the industry, being floated by other congressional Democrats.” A Harris adviser told this to CNN.
When I think of a moderate health plan, I think of the ACA. And "preserving the industry" sounds like more than just supplemental coverage.
I found this excerpt regarding Mnuchin from the Huffington Post, which paints a slightly different picture:
Kamala Harris has been deemed the democratic party establishment’s next big thing. They’re pushing her as the figure head of the resistance, the anti-Trump: a staunch, strong progressive who relies on her intelligence and empathy to combat the authoritarian belligerence of the current administration. While Harris is certainly poised and intelligent, her progressive credentials are fuzzy and her past is punctuated boldly by her decision to not prosecute OneWest Bank and the “foreclosure king” who ran it, current Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
Steve Mnuchin and OneWest Bank were, according to a memo obtained and reported on by The Intercept, guilty of “widespread misconduct” in the form of over 1,000 legal violations. The memo was the result of a year-long investigation and it asserts that OneWest Bank operated to intentionally boost foreclosures. The Campaign for Accountability called for a federal investigation of Mnuchin and OneWest Bank claiming they used “potentially illegal tactics to foreclose on as many as 80,000 California homes.”
Yet despite internal memos explicitly mentioning numerous prosecutable offenses by Mnuchin and co., then California Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to prosecute.
She’s never given an explanation for her decision and Mnuchin later donated $2,000.00 to Harris’ campaign. It was his only donation to a democratic candidate.
Her only direct acknowledgment of the memo uncovered by The Intercept was when speaking to The Hill the day after the story was published. It was a non-answer that simply restated already established facts:
“We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it’s a decision my office made[.] [W]e pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us.”
And as for her role as a prosecutor in general, here's an excerpt from the New York Times:
Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’
The senator was often on the wrong side of history when she served as California’s attorney general.
SAN FRANCISCO — With the growing recognition that prosecutors hold the keys to a fairer criminal justice system, the term “progressive prosecutor” has almost become trendy. This is how Senator Kamala Harris of California, a likely presidential candidate and a former prosecutor, describes herself.
But she’s not.
Time after time, when progressives urged her to embrace criminal justice reforms as a district attorney and then the state’s attorney general, Ms. Harris opposed them or stayed silent. Most troubling, Ms. Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.
Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.
Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.
Ms. Harris also championed state legislation under which parents whose children were found to be habitually truant in elementary school could be prosecuted, despite concerns that it would disproportionately affect low-income people of color.
Ms. Harris was similarly regressive as the state’s attorney general. When a federal judge in Orange County ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 2014, Ms. Harris appealed. In a public statement, she made the bizarre argument that the decision “undermines important protections that our courts provide to defendants.” (The approximately 740 men and women awaiting execution in California might disagree).
In 2014, she declined to take a position on Proposition 47, a ballot initiative approved by voters, that reduced certain low-level felonies to misdemeanors. She laughed that year when a reporter asked if she would support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Ms. Harris finally reversed course in 2018, long after public opinion had shifted on the topic.
In 2015, she opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate shootings involving officers. And she refused to support statewide standards regulating the use of body-worn cameras by police officers. For this, she incurred criticism from an array of left-leaning reformers, including Democratic state senators, the A.C.L.U. and San Francisco’s elected public defender. The activist Phelicia Jones, who had supported Ms. Harris for years, asked, “How many more people need to die before she steps in?”
Really? The Democratic establishment wants diversity of identity rather than diversity of ideas. The age of "old, straight white men" is dead. Harris gives them what they want. She waffles on Medicare for all, while her advisers offer assurances that she supports "a path" to Medicare for all, as well as moderate healthcare reforms. She's "tough on crime" when it comes to going after little fish, which also pleases the authoritarians. Harris is set to raise money with a former Wells Fargo executive, and has reached out to Wall Street executives.
Like I said, faux progressive.
He seems healthy to me. He's spent the last four years campaigning across the country for democratic socialism, and now many of his rivals are simply riding his coattails.
The only other candidate who seems authentic to me is Tulsi. I would vote for her if Bernie had to drop out. Otherwise, it's Green yet again for me.
Bernie Sanders on Face the Nation, June 2019:
An online magazine article from June 14, 2017 (https://blog.politicsmeanspolitics.com/discovering-bernie-sanders-siren-song-a-journey-to-his-dark-side-c1032187e02c )
Discovering Bernie Sanders siren song: A journey to his dark side by S. Novi
Image Source: Forbes
If we reach back to the initial days of the Presidential election, we can remember the entrance of Bernie Sanders. This somewhat crazy looking old man stood up and began speaking words that many of us as long-term Democrats believed in. Although an ‘Independent’, most of us knew little about him, but he seemed to touch the soul of the youth and old hippies such as myself.
I have been a Hillary Clinton fan for many years, but I knew that I had to listen to Sanders. His words resonated with what I and many thought was needed and frankly, he was incredibly refreshing.
As the candidacy proceeded a good friend of mine warned me about Bernie Sanders. I scoffed at him a bit, and what I give him credit for is that he didn’t try to change my mind. He advised me to ‘do what I do best’. As a researcher/writer and having been involved in politics for many years, he told me to dig deep and discover on my own. He knew that I had worked in the media when it did have integrity, when we could count on and turn to ‘the news’ and we both confirmed that today’s MSM is simply a ratings game and that they sold their souls for profit.
My method of research always includes locating valid sources that do not have a political agenda. After finding information, I look to other sources for validation. This can often take me down a number of rabbit holes and when that happens, I return to the tried and true old-school library. Very few younger researchers are even aware of a microfiche machine, let alone how to use one and so I began my journey. I have been in the computer industry for many years and yet still know and recognize that there are many methods and ways to find the truth.
A majority of this information will NOT be found in the Sanders ‘Wikipedia’ content as he threatened to sue Wikipedia in the beginning of his Presidential campaign for the removal of the data and they agreed to the removal.
Image Source: Reddit
Who Is This Man?
We know Sanders as the Independent Senator from the state of Vermont, but as you peel away the layers of what he has done or really accomplished, you find that it’s a lot of hot air and very little in plans or completion. In finding out his history, you have to remember that he was a child of the 60’s and 70’s. Many wanted ‘change’ and that meant filtering through the yelling and demands of everyone from the common sense to the radical. Bernie fell upon the messages of the well-known activist Abbie Hoffman and it was there that he found his ‘voice’. Much of what set him as the person that we know today was based on Hoffman, and the cries of freedom from the ‘establishment’. A full list of his history and some of the dark shades of his past was posted in an Investors.com article. The information below includes a bit of that information and other data located in research and that can be verified using valid sources, if the reader simply chooses to look for it.
Sanders was born on September 8, 1941 to Polish immigrant parents of Jewish descent, in Brooklyn, NY. He was like many of his generation, unhappy with the status quo and always angry for change. He went to Brooklyn College for a year and then transferred to UC (University of Chicago) where he earned his political science degree in 1964. It was at UC that he found kindred spirits, joining the ‘Young Peoples Socialist League’ which was the Socialist Party USA youth wing. He also joined other organizations that reinforced his beliefs including: the Student Peace Union and the Congress of Racial Equality. He began organizing the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and was part of the California psychiatric hospital American Friends Service Committee project. It wasn’t until he fell into the position of ‘organizer’ for the United Packinghouse Workers Union that he began interfacing with some of the communist members of the group. It is important to note that this organization was under investigation by the House Committee on un-American Activities. This relationship was the tipping point in his life as he pursued this avenue in believing that the ‘equality’ of communism was more beneficial to society than Democracy.
During his early life as an ‘activist’ Sanders participated in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where Martin Luther King, Jr gave his eloquent speech: “I Have a Dream”. During that summer Sanders was convicted of resisting arrest while participating in a demonstration opposing segregation in the Chicago Public School system. His fine was $25.
In 1963 he was done with college, and as many of his generation, began searching for validation of his new-found beliefs. He worked and lived in an Israeli kibbutz for a number of months. The kibbutz was called ‘KSH’ (Sha’ar Ha’amakim), and was co-founded by an Arabist by the name of Aharon Cohen. Cohen was very critical of Israeli policies and had been arrested in the 50’s for spying for the (then) Soviet Union. To understand the environment of the kibbutz you need to realize that its founders called Joseph Stalin the ‘Sun of the Nations’ and they flew a red flag at the outdoor events. A Zionist-Marxist youth movement known as ‘HH’ (Hasomer Hatzair) confirmed Sanders presence at KSH as their guest. The HH was not only controversial, it was considered to be a bit dangerous. Members pledged their allegiance to the Soviet Union (which existed at that time) and some of the extreme members of the group were described as Stalinist or Leninist. HH had been very upfront about their participation with the Zionists. They indicated that it was simply temporary and a quick way to assist in a more expedient socialist revolution. Members of HH viewed the independence of Israel as just a transitional step in creating a socialist state and would end Israel’s condition as a Jewish entity.
Note: The collapse of the Soviet Union was 1990–1991, therefore it is correct to refer to the ‘Soviet Union’ as the name for dates prior to the collapse.
The HH founder, Ya’akov Hazan let it be known that he considered the USSR to be his ‘second homeland’. Quotes from him in 1953 included the fact that he considered “the terrible tragedy that has befallen the nations of the Soviet Union, the world proletariat and all of progressive mankind, upon the death of the great leader and extolled commander, Josef Vissarionovich Stalin…..We lower our flag in grief in memory of the great revolutionary fighter, architect of socialist construction, and leader of the world’s peace movement. His huge historical achievements will guide generations in their march towards the reign of socialism and communism the world over.” This is important to remember because Sanders was being heavily influenced by the people that he met at the kibbutz and the interchanges and political exchanges that occurred. This experience set a baseline for many of his words and actions in the future.
After his time at the kibbutz, Sanders moved to Vermont. The state has long been a center for artists, creators and free-thinking individuals and continues to be today. As was part of his standards, Sanders didn’t really work on a full time basis but did hold various jobs as a writer, filmmaker, researchers and even a carpenter. By the time 1964 rolled around he met and married Deborah Sanders but the marriage dissolved by 1966. He meandered in various jobs as a psychiatric-hospital aide and an employee for the Vermont Department of Taxes. He also made a living at a nonprofit, Bread and Law Task Force, where he helped people register for food stamps.
It was in 1972 that Bernie Sanders wrote his controversial ‘rape article’ in the Vermont Freeman, an alternative newspaper. The essay entitled ‘Man — and Woman’ referenced a woman fantasizing about being raped. The quote from the article that has had many outraged stated:
“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.” The article was published in 2015 in Mother Jones as a way to bring attention to Bernie Sanders, and his history.
Known for railing against the U.S. government and the two main political parties, he held very little in the way of ‘gainful employment’ for a number of years. From 1971–1976 Sanders participated in the founding of the Vermont ‘Liberty Union Party’ which was a socialist organization and it was then that he decided to run for both governor and senator. His platform included a demand that the government takeover the medical industry and ‘all privately owned electric utilities’ and the idea of ‘nationalization of the oil industry’. His idea extended to the radical concept of: ‘without compensation to the banks and wealthy individuals who own them’. Additionally, he carried forward the Leninist concept of demanding that the U.S. government seize the wealth and assets of billionaires and carry out a redistribution ‘for all people’. One has to remember that these ideas smack of pure socialism and communism and do not correlate with a Democracy.
By 1977, Sanders had founded the American People’s Historical Society, a socialist group. He produced a thirty minute documentary that praised one of his heroes, Eugene Debs, who was a socialist revolutionary. Debs was put in jail under the Espionage Act, but Sanders maintained a high level of respect for him, even keeping Deb’s portrait on the wall of his Senate office.
Sanders’ ranting against big business and the government was a mainstay at this point. Still not having any real gainful employment, by 1979 he wrote an article for what was considered to be an extreme leftist publication. In the article he indicated that the public should take over the television industry, removing all commercial advertising and put the television content under government control. Note- this is what is done in many communist countries and continues in Russia today.
During the 70’s, Sanders also included many ideas that were socialist in nature and bordered on the bizarre. Just a few of them incorporated: abolishing the CIA, getting rid of the military and returning control to the people as citizen militia while requesting that the Coast Guard provide sufficient protection from the impulses of imperialist leaders. By 1980, the ‘Socialist Workers Party’ was demanding ‘solidarity’ with the regimes of Nicaragua, Iran, Cuba and Grenada. To achieve this they wanted the abolishment of the military budget. One has to remember that this was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis, but Sanders and his socialist group didn’t care.
[To be continued...]
[Cont’d] Discovering Bernie Sanders siren song: A journey to his dark side by S. Novi
Image Source: Jacobin
Becoming a Mayor
In 1981 Sanders ran for and won the position of Mayor of Burlington, VT. There were many that had listened to his messages for a renewed government and his words were both refreshing and enlightening. He had a lot of ‘plans’ but little in the way of follow through, assuming that one way or another, things would somehow get done. He announced that he didn’t believe in any private charities, thought they should all be disbanded and replaced by government responsibility for all charities and social welfare. This is a belief that he has pretty much maintained throughout his life. It has been reported by those that know him that Sanders doesn’t donate much/any money to charities.
It is here that the story takes a more in-depth turn. Thus far, we have seen a young man that supported both communist and socialist regimes, but little in the explanation of ‘who’ he really is. For the first time, Sanders had the ‘power’ to institute change and yet this is also the time that the real personality of the man began to be exposed.
In 1981, Bernie also made the decision to adopt Moscow as a Soviet ‘sister city and a town in Nicaragua in support of the Sandinista communist revolution that was going on there. In 1985, officials from the Soviet Union and communist China were invited by Sanders to his office. Part of the discussions was a proposal for Washington to divert military defense funds and ‘pay for thousands of U.S. children to go to the Soviet Union.’
Still 1985, Sanders had a resolution passed in Burlington that would defy President Reagan’s embargo against the communist-controlled Nicaragua. It was then that Sanders made a trip to Managua to attend an anti-U.S. rally that was also attended by Soviet officials and was sponsored by the Sandinistas. Reports came through that Sanders stood with the crowd that chanted ‘Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die’. It’s important to note that the trip was said to have been paid by the Sandinista government and in turn, Sanders invited Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader to visit the United States.
The New York Post reported that Sanders penned a letter to the Sandinistas pledging his support for their ‘struggle’ and referring to it as a ‘heroic revolution’, while referring to the Reagan administration as engaging in ‘terrorist activities’. Sanders was interviewed by the Vermont government-access television where he made the claim ‘The Sandinista government has more support among the Nicaraguan people — substantially more support — than Ronald Reagan has among the American people.” The interview continued as he praised Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator with the comment “he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society” . Ignoring the mass murders, atrocities and imprisonment policies of Cuba, he then traveled to Havana to meet with its mayor.
The underlying philosophies that Sanders has held throughout his life was exemplified in a 1985 Los Angeles Times interview where he stated “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”
One Incident Exposes All
In an interview/article, someone that had worked closely with and believed in Sanders found out exactly how devious and dark he truly is. Sanders knew that he needed some positive press associated with his name and while he established ‘The Mayor’s Emergency Shelter’ he never visited. He was on the board, but never attended any of the board meetings. He met only twice with those that were running the ten week temporary shelter for the homeless in his office and in each case he was not only aloof, but didn’t want to discuss the struggles the shelter was having with addiction and alcohol issues. Instead, he ranted about the shelter volunteers bringing their Bibles with them. It was then that he exposed his bigotry against Christians as he didn’t seem to believe that Christians could be part of a political left ideology. Sanders was already receiving credit for the shelter, even though he didn’t participate in it. Those that were running the shelter didn’t receive any praise for its success and it wasn’t until later that they found out that he had set in place a plan to block the shelter and use a large grant to start another one. He was securing funds for a ‘joint wet shelter and Battered Women’s Shelter’, which was a bad idea on a number of levels. When the director of this shelter foiled his plans for the new one, Sanders threatened to blackmail him. The ten week ‘Mayor’s Shelter’ closed and the former director planned to open a new one to assist in keeping the shelter guests out of the cold weather. When Zoning Board approval was needed, Sanders refused to return phone calls and it took threatening to release this info to the press for Sanders lack of interest in the homeless for him to respond. Sanders was furious and informed the director that if he continued on this plan he would get no help from the City and ‘there would be hell to pay for the shelter’. Although the director had to back off, he then waited and in three weeks he got the zoning approval. Sanders continued his own negative campaign on this situation, arranging for a few of his aldermen to oppose the shelter opening. When the neighbors in the area came to the defense of the shelter with signed petitions, Sanders countered by getting a disastrous ‘Waystation’ approved to compete with the more responsible homeless shelter. Sanders made sure that the funding came through for his shelter, which created an environment that enabled alcoholics. Again, Sanders had never appeared at any meetings but pushed his own Waystation Flophouse through and it didn’t include any considerations for those with addictions. The proof of the failure came all too quickly. Burlington had previously only had about twenty five homeless and within a short time it jumped to 250, with no time limits and no drug/alcohol restriction policies. People from all over the state were flocking to this shelter and Burlington saw an increase in prostitution, hard drugs, assaults, panhandling, harassment and a variety of other crimes.
This story of hateful vengeance with little in the way of even wanting to understand the way that things need to work continues to today. The shelter rarely has any openings and hundreds of people are being put up at motels, all being paid by the state to the tune of $34 million. The interaction with Sanders during this time showed a phony, egomaniac, and arrogant man that was hell-bent on having things his way only.
Sanders showed who he really was, with little or no interest in the welfare of the homeless people, but only interest in the ‘limelight’ that would shine on his name. This behavior is exactly and totally ‘Sanders’, as he is focused on keeping himself as a focus.
In 1988 Sanders remarried to his current wife, Jane Sanders. They chose to go to the USSR for their honeymoon. When they returned he made comments praising their housing and healthcare and stated ‘the cost of both services is much, much higher in the United States.” It should also be noted that the Cold War was still going on, although by 1989 it was waning. It was during this time that Sanders addressed the U.S. Peace Council at their national conference. This organization is yet another known front for the Communist Party USA and their members have sworn an oath to ‘the triumph of Soviet power in the U.S.’.
By 1989, Sanders decided not to run for the Mayoral position again and instead began a lecturing tour on political science that included Hamilton College and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, through 1991.
Congress and the Senate
Sanders continued to be an ‘Independent’ in politics and in 1990, he was the first one in fifty years of that political choice to be elected to Congress. The fact that he was a socialist was so unusual that publications, including the Washington Post made note of it as he was the first elected socialist to the United States House of Representatives in decades. He served in that position from 1991 until 2007 when he became a Senator.
His time in Congress earned Sanders the name of ‘the angry man’ by his peers. He continued to rail against both the major political parties, believing that there was little difference between them.
There is a slippery-slope of information regarding the NRA and Bernie Sanders. While there is little evidence that the NRA supported or donated to the Sanders campaigns, it’s what they did in the background that counts. The NRA knew that Sanders had a more open-minded attitude about guns and gun control, so they devoted funds to opposing the candidates that Sanders was running against.
This may explain a bit of Sanders history on guns. He voted against the 1993 Brady Bill that would mandate federal background checks as well as impose a waiting period on firearms purchases in the U.S. However, it’s important to remember that he did vote for the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which included the Violence Against Women Act as well as a ban on certain types of assault weapons. He ranted against all parties in the House and blamed them for bad policies that doomed people to lives of hopelessness, drugs, violence and crime.
Many have come forward to highlight the Sanders votes in 1991 and 2002 for voting against the resolutions authorizing force against Iraq and that he was against the 2003 Iraq invasion. He did vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in 2001 as it was presented as a legal justification for some of the post-September 11 controversial military actions. Sanders did vote for a non-binding resolution for troop suppose at the beginning of the Iraq invasion and gave a floor speech criticizing the partisan nature of the vote and the run-up to the war by the George W. Bush administration.
One of the most controversial votes by Sanders was in 2005 when he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The purpose was designed to keep both firearms dealers and manufacturers from being held liable for negligence when a crime had been committed with their products.
Image Source: The Times of Israel
What Has Sanders Actually Accomplished as a Senator?
If you talk to many of those that have worked with Bernie Sanders in the Senate, they will gladly tell you that he has made a lot of enemies. But that alone isn’t enough to negate him, however, the fact that he has now earned the name ‘angry old man’ might tell you how things have turned for him.
It is apparent that everyone is accustomed to Sanders railing against almost everything, getting along with very few and pretty much demanding that he get his way (or the highway). He has spent an incredible number of years in the Senate and, as the title of a 2016 Politico article indicates:
“Sanders had big ideas but little impact on Capitol Hill. Democrats who worked with the Vermont senator say he contributed to the debate, but rarely forged actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it.”
Sanders admits that he has been known for ‘big thinking’, but unlike someone such as Elizabeth Warren, who shares many of his ideologies and gets bills passed, Sanders is a big talker, with little in the way of results. One of the main reasons is that he doesn’t like to negotiate.
In the same article they pretty much clarified the lack luster history of Sanders in the Senate:
“Liberal Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), a Hillary Clinton supporter who describes herself as a big Sanders fan, struggled when asked ahead of last month’s debate in Milwaukee if she could point to examples of the Vermont senator’s actually influencing the outcome of legislation, other than the much praised bipartisan Veterans Affairs reform he led as chairman of that committee in the Senate……
“Um,” she said, pausing for a full eight seconds while thinking, “I’m sure I could. In terms of the things that he talks the most about, is when he was chair of the Veterans Affairs committee. But he actually compromised on a whole heck of a lot. Back in … it’s not coming to my mind right now.”
While Sanders and his supporters love to promote the fact that he has been a ‘major player’ in many of the life changing bills that affect people’s lives, it doesn’t translate from those that have worked with him. Even on the topic of promoting Obamacare (ACA), Sanders touts himself as a major contributor.
In the Poltico article they quote “Topher Spiro, a top HELP Committee staffer who helped draft the bill and is now a vice president for health policy at the Center for American Progress:”
“His support for the most consequential legislation in years was lukewarm,” said Spiro, noting that in his years of work on the bill, he does not remember a conversation with Sanders on an issue.”
Image Source: The National Review
The Presidential Campaign & Beyond
While Sanders began his bid for the Democratic nominee as an Independent, being graciously accepted under the Democratic Party, he was also a kind of alternative ‘entertainment’ for mainstream media. They didn’t take this crazy old man seriously; his wild hair and cheaply made suits, ranting against ‘the establishment’ and calling for a drastic shift in the way that the American government works.
However, as he gained a growing audience, it became clear that his message had resonated with at least ‘some’ of the people. Repeating from the beginning of this article, all they had to do was reach back to the rhetoric of activist Abbie Hoffman to see where these philosophies came from.
Everyone knew just about everything about his running opponent, Hillary Clinton, and she continued to try to be as transparent to the people as she possibly could. But the media, the campaign and especially the Republicans, left Sanders alone. When presented, his supporters didn’t believe any of it and it was thought that the RNC was holding the information aside as a method of attack if he became the Democratic candidate for the Presidential race.
The Sanders campaign began badly, starting with his inner staff stealing the Clinton email list and then following with the addition of illegally listed organizational supporters whose ire was so great that they threatened lawsuit. The fact was that Sanders had alienated almost everyone throughout the years and he could get very few people or organizations to endorse him.
But this is mild compared to what happened next, as his supporters began to grow and they transitioned from those that thought he had a clear message to an obsessed and devious cult. Since many were young they made use of the internet, social media and technology to attack Hillary Clinton supporters and we saw the growth of the BernieBros and the BernieBots. While it must be noted that a percentage of these were not supporters of Sanders, but instead foreign members designed to cause a divide, there were still a large number of them that began to make threatening phone calls and send emails to representatives. The news media started referring to the Bernie supporters as ‘the children of the corn’ and Clinton campaign members were forced to establish private social media groups to avoid the attacks.
This attitude was amplified during many of the Sanders rallies as his supporters chanted ‘burn the witch’ and he simply smiled. It also must be noted to during Clinton rallies, Hillary Clinton praised the efforts of Sanders in getting people interested in the political system and his ideas and the crowds in attendance applauded. As the Presidential campaign heated up, Sanders began to show his true identity. His attacks on Hillary Clinton became more vicious, and he let his supporters do all of the dirty work. In states that made use of caucuses, his supporters showed up in mass numbers, taunting and badgering Hillary Clinton supporters on all fronts. People were hesitant to show up to vote and in many of the caucuses the Sanders supporters jeered and harassed potential voters and those representing the Clinton campaign.
In states that Bernie Sanders won, his supporters cheered. In states where he lost, they screamed and accused the Clinton campaign and the DNC of cheating. The behavior of the Sanders supporters began to take on the same extreme as the right wing Tea Party. It was also discovered that the creators of the ‘fake news’ against Hillary Clinton had targeted not only the conservatives but had recrafted the same messages for the Sanders supporters. Both sides consumed it as if it were ‘mana from heaven’ and conspiracy theories of all shapes and sizes were almost identical on both sides. This was confirmed by the representative that was running the Sanders social media, as he discovered the situation but it was too great for him to try to control it.
During this entire time, Sanders said and did nothing to stop the negative conditions. Instead, he was in his glory, finally achieving the podium and attention that he had longed for throughout his life, with people that were cheering and believing in him. The taste of power was his and he reveled in it.
Historically, everyone that loses the nomination begins almost immediately to try to change the hearts and minds of their supporters so that they will instead vote for the individual that won. Hillary Clinton did this with grace and flair when she lost to Barack Obama, and no matter which election it is, the supporters have a rough time making the transition. However, Sanders proved once again that he held no love for the election process or supporting a Democratic candidate. Instead of talking to his followers, he took time off to write a book and to buy a third house. His campaign continued to send out their outreach via email to the supporters, asking for donations for only those candidates that they felt passed their scrutiny, without mention of a single word regarding Clinton. When Sanders did show up again, it was lack luster support of Hillary Clinton. The results of his continued self-motivated behavior is that many of his supporters refused to vote for Hillary Clinton. The statistics have shown that third party voters or those that didn’t vote, handed the election to Trump.
Image Source: A New Domain.net
The Power Was Too Strong
Having tasted what it was like to have adoring fans that not only supported the long held socialist beliefs but would fall on their sword for their new messiah, Sanders couldn’t let it go. He and his wife Jane began almost immediately to institute their plans in establishing a third party.
Sanders made use of the energy of his supporters and they expanded out to begin examining and ‘approving’ specific Democratic candidates that passed their purity litmus test. This is explained in a previous article “Bernie Sanders & the BernieCrats: Attacking Liberals that Don’t Pass their “Purity Test”.
As he proved in his historic campaign battle in his own state, if a Democratic candidate isn’t ‘progressive enough’ he will do everything that he can to let a Republican candidate win. After all, in his mind, both parties are alike.
In the eyes of standard Dems, who may have shared many of the ideologies of Sanders, he and his BernieBots, BernieBros and BernieCrats have taken on the new label of ‘Tea Party Left’. Their extreme attitude is now including the intention to hijack as many local elections as they can and ‘kick out’ anyone that doesn’t comply with all of their beliefs.
While credit should be given to Sanders for helping to open up the Democratic platform to a more left-leaning alignment, that is where it ends. Sanders has always held support for socialist and communist doctrines and an extreme distaste that borderlines on hate for the Democratic experiment.
Yes, change is absolutely required in the United States. Yes, we need to align ourselves with less programs that support the wealthy and more that encourage quality life for ‘we the people’. Yes, we are now a country that is described as an ‘oligarchy’ and not the Democracy that we once were. But Sanders has selected the wrong dialogue and his supporters are doomed to failure because they will not work with others on a team level.
Thus far, almost all of the candidates that Sanders and his group are promoting as ‘progressive’ have lost.
This article is but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to who Sanders really is. Those that know him and have worked with him realize that he IS an angry old man who is a micromanager and vindictive when he doesn’t get his way. He cares not for the losses of the downtrodden but only for the golden ‘ideology’. The little people are unimportant to him and he will do and say anything to achieve the completely socialistic transition of the country, with little in the way of plans or methods to make it work.
Sanders has refused to release all but year of his tax returns, and thus far, it’s believed that between the campaign and his book advance, he is now part of the 1% that he has spent a lifetime hating. His wife, Jane, is under investigation for bank fraud [the investigation is over; no charges were brought against Jane Sanders https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/jane-sanders-escapes-charges-after-investigation-of-burlington-college-land-deal/ ], and there’s that pesky $10 million dollar donation in his campaign fund that has gone unexplained. [See also strike 3, 2019: https://www.thepeoplesview.net/main...nders-campaign-10-million-mystery-contributio ]
Meanwhile, his supporters continue to refuse to acknowledge or admit to any of the downfalls of Sanders and those that do realize the ‘truth’, follow up by making excuses and even adopting the adoration of pure socialism and/or communism. They ignore the atrocities and choose to look at the ‘golden ring’ that is being offered in their concept of a Utopian world.
Ultimately, Bernie Sanders has no business sticking his nose in the Democratic Party, and unless his supporters want to join and work with existing members to try to get real change accomplished, they are not wanted either.
Joe Scarborough: 2nd night of Dem debates was a disaster:
"Ignore atrocities." Like posting a lengthy article disparaging Bernie Sanders rather than refuting valid points about Kamala Harris.
"Real Change." Sanders made a great point at the debate that politicians campaign on all of these wonderful ideas which never seem to materialize. There's no such thing as "real change" working within the Democratic Party as long as they're beholden to their donors and the military industrial complex. They told Sanders supporters that they weren't wanted in 2016 either, and look how that turned out. Chuck Schumer said they would pick up two moderate Republicans in the rust belt for every blue collar Democrat they lost. The reason the Democratic Party is such a dud is because they stopped courting the poor and the working class, and instead decided to become Republican lite. Bernie's helping pull them back to the left.
I've never said Bernie was perfect, but he is certainly the most consistent. He's not a full blown socialist/communist like many people mistakenly claim. He calls himself a Democratic socialist, but what he's promoting is social democracy. A social democracy is defined as "a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist mixed economy." America is already a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, and Sanders is trying to expand the scope of that. Instead of wasting money on needless and costly wars, he would rather invest our tax dollars in the healthcare and education of Americans. He's fighting for a living wage and to combat climate change. The fact that most of the Democratic field have incorporated his ideas in their platform is a huge accomplishment. It shows how his decades long fight for these policies is finally resonating with the public at large. Like him or not, Sanders has been a big help in pushing the party left.
Regarding the essay on rape: The Sanders campaign quickly tried to distance itself — and the candidate — from the 43-year-old essay. Campaign spokesman Michael Briggs called the essay a "dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication" in an interview with CNN, adding that it "in no way reflects his views or record on women." He added, "It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the '70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then."
Also, some of the criticisms of Bernie are flat out stupid. Like making fun of his hair, his suits, or his becoming part of the 1%. Even the account of the Bernie/Hillary feud sounds like revisionism. Bernie attacked Hillary for her policy record, and rightly so. While Hillary fired back that Bernie was for "pie in the sky" and "fairy dust." They disparage Bernie for writing a book, even though Hillary wrote a book where she blamed Bernie, his supporters, Russia, and James Comey for her loss. There's certainly no accountability there. The DNC cheated on behalf of Hillary, but again, Bernie and his supporters are portrayed as sexists. Bernie campaigned his ass off for Hillary and told his supporters to vote for her, but it wasn't good enough.
As for Bernie's wealth, Forbes lists his net worth around $2.5 million. That hardly puts him in the same income bracket as someone like Jeff Bezos, who is worth over $100 billion. Sanders doesn't hate the 1%, he just wants to end greed and crony capitalism.
The article's point about Bernie's tax returns is also moot now. He released ten years worth back in April.
Scarborough's a typical, out of touch, corporate media tool. All that matters is beating Trump? What kind of simpleton view is that? If you replace Trump with another authoritarian tool who capitulates to the wealthy and the military industrial complex, what exactly have you gained? That's why I'll never understand how Biden became the front runner. He is absolute trash whose policies align more with the Republican Party. And yeah, no shit Bernie is saying the same thing he did "four years ago." You see, there's this thing called consistency which most voters find appealing. I certainly am tired of candidates who flip flop on the issues based on shifting political winds, which includes most of the Democratic field.
People like Scarborough clearly don't understand the point of a primary, which is to vote for the candidate with the best ideas. By definition, that means going after each other's records.
You have written disparagingly of others, pinned labels on them and, I guess, have in your mind justified it as all for valid reasons, then you get upset at an article “disparaging” Mr Sanders? That takes the cake. I think the deeper truth is that you don’t like being placed in a position where you feel you need to defend Bernie Sanders; that you’d much rather be batting down candidates whom you feel threaten to pip him at the post for the presidential nomination. Well, I don’t feel like I have to defend Kamala Harris on her record at all, she’s a big girl.
Speaking of stereotypes & Hillary....
I don't care that you have a negative opinion of Sanders, and I have no qualms about defending him. However, we were having a discussion about Kamala Harris, and you immediately switched gears and posted an article about Bernie Sanders. So perhaps the "deeper truth" is you don't like your candidate of choice being attacked, so you flipped the script on me.
That's fine, but the lack of a proper transition was rather jarring. And it was all the more funny considering the article accused Sanders supporters of ignoring his alleged atrocities.
I'm not sure what that video has to do with Hillary (other than the joke at the end), but all I see is a socially awkward guy trying to inform children and dispel stereotypes.
I can assure you that that's far from the truth.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I still find the lack of transition jarring. We were having a back and forth about Kamala Harris, and then you jumped to Bernie Sanders.
I also want to reiterate that I don't think Sanders is perfect. His vote for the 1994 crime bill is a prime example. I just vastly prefer his overall policies and his commitment to them.
MSNBC: Forget About Policy, Just Be Anti-Trump!
Separate names with a comma.