Post removed

[George II]

2. You caught that in one day? I'm impressed.

[BainsBane]

4. I don't know why it took the media so long to look at his voting record

on this. He also voted for the wall and against immigration reform.

[George II]

6. You mean he changes positions on issues? Oh the horror!

[Dawson Leery]

10. It does not speak well that he would take up with these nuts.

A Jew, taking up with these bastards!

[JDPriestly]

15. Apparently the amendment to the from what I can tell appropriations bill that had utterly no purpose

or impact.

And the bill passed with a great deal of Democratic Bluedog support.


Kingston’s amendment overwhelmingly passed the Republican-controlled Congress, including the votes of 76 Democrats, most of them from the party’s then-strong Blue Dog conservative wing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/in-2006-bernie-sanders-voted-in-support-of-an-immigration-co#.yfWwEKVMq

To be fair, the Hillary supporters who are gloating over this should name all the other, the 76 other Democrats that voted for this amendment. Why did they vote for it?

There are some facts missing from this story I suspect.

Apparently Bernie had a lot of company when voting for this amendment.

[JDPriestly]

17. Maybe because the bill passed with a great deal of Democratic Bluedog support.

Kingston’s amendment overwhelmingly passed the Republican-controlled Congress, including the votes of 76 Democrats, most of them from the party’s then-strong Blue Dog conservative wing.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/in-2006-bernie-sanders-voted-in-support-of-an-immigration-co#.yfWwEKVMq

To be fair, the Hillary supporters who are gloating over this should name all the other, the 76 other Democrats that voted for this amendment. Why did they vote for it?

Do you have a link to the text of the bill? I'd love to read it and to know the names of the other Democrats who voted for it.

[Wilms]

5. The article cites Spandan Chakrabarti!!

LOL!

Do you have any idea?

[George II]

7. What's your point? The article has many citations.

[roguevalley]

8. so do all those on Clinton but you thrash them too. Nice try.

DEBUNKED!

[Cha]

11. So What?!!!!!

[riversedge]

34. and, what is your point?

[notadmblnd]

12. This is not latest breaking news and should be deleted

Buzzfeed posted it around 10 this morning which is past the 12 hour limit. It was also posted here around one pm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251887966

In 2006, Bernie Sanders Voted In Support Of An Immigration Conspiracy Theory

While a member of the House, Sanders voted for an amendment designed to protect the militia known as the Minutemen from the federal government ratting them out to Mexico.
posted on Dec. 9, 2015, at 10:18 a.m. http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/in-2006-bernie-sanders-voted-in-support-of-an-immigration-co#.ibWg82bMj3

[George II]

14. The LA Times article was posted at 2:19 PM.

[notadmblnd]

16. and the west coast is 3 hours behind the rest of the country

I believe you intentionally posted it here this late using the later time stamp of a west coast paper, because you think it will gain more exposure here. It is not LBN and you know it.

[pnwmom]

19. So the East coast is the REAL TIME and we west coast people have to follow it? What are you afraid

for people to see this news article?

Just own up to it. Bernie supported the Minute Men in another pro-gun vote.

[JonLeibowitz]

25. The post was made EST -- everybody in this thread outraged at the timestamps

needs to dial down the outrage-ometer. Yes, including the Bernie supporters.

But the lies in the OP are concerning.

[notadmblnd]

27. It's not LBN and it has been debunked

How many time do you folks have to copy and paste an article in one day? Do we really need thirty of these like we did yesterday when HRC supporter claimed the sky was falling because Sander's spokesperson asked for no ISIS questions at an event Sander's attended.

No, I think the question should be- what are you afraid of that you all have to flood the forum with multiple post on the same subject every day, all day? Are HRC supporters that worried about their candidate?

BTW the Latin Times is located in New York and it was published by them well after the Buzzfeed article was posted, so I stand by what I said, This is not LBN.

[pnwmom]

38. It has NOT been debunked. He voted yes along with a bunch of blue dog Democrats.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm


Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.

Voting YES on this amendment supports the Minuteman Project, a group of volunteers who have taken on surveillance of the Mexican border for illegal immigrants. The amendment states that US funds will not be used to tell the Mexican government about the whereabouts of the Minuteman Project volunteers. Proponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are volunteer citizens doing what the federal government SHOULD be doing, but has failed to do. Opponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are vigilantes at best and anti-Mexican racists at worst. The amendment states:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.
• The amendment's sponsor said on its behalf:
• What this amendment does is it clarifies Congress' position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the US Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located.
• As a response to the lawlessness along the Mexican border, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington DC. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill.
• There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and their help has been productive and good.
• What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice.
Reference: Department of Homeland Security appropriations; Bill HR 5441 Amendment 968 ; vote number 2006-224 on Jun 6, 2006

[JonLeibowitz]

20. See post 18. This was posted at 2:19 EST <-- Eastern. Why Eastern you ask?

The latin times is not the LA Times.

Clever OP, this one.

[notadmblnd]

22. Yeah, the OP is clever alright

[JonLeibowitz]

18. In what universe is the Latin Times the LA Times?

One is a significantly better and more prestigious publication than the other, and it is concerning that you would misrepresent one as the other as would favor your argument.

The source tag at the top of this OP, and in this comment I am replying to, is literally a bold-faced lie (yes yes, I know about the controversy of bald-faced vs. bold-faced, let me make the pun )

Indeed, this does make one stop to think; My thinking has concluded to be very careful about whether OPs by Bernie bashers are honest and truthful.

[pnwmom]

21. Do you really want to disparage a Latino American newspaper?

You should have just stopped at pointing out George's error. But to say one is significantly better and more prestigious,, well . . . .

that will really encourage Hispanic DUers to support Bernie Sanders.




In any case it's still within the 12 hour limit for late breaking news.

[JonLeibowitz]

24. I literally don't care at all about the 12 hour limit.

My beef is with the lies in this OP. I would imagine those that prefer truthfulness would agree. Am I wrong?

The LA Times simply is a better paper -- by any of a number of metrics, including number of Pulitzers.

[pnwmom]

26. I think it was a simple error, and one I've almost made myself. And your comment

about how much better and more prestigious the LA times is risks offending Latin American readers of the paper . . . Bernie's support among Hispanics is already low enough, don't you think?

[JonLeibowitz]

31. I don't know, I certainly intended no offense. It is simply a factual statement.

The LA Times has 41 Pulitzers to its name. How about the Latin Times?

The Latin Times doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.

The LA Times has an entire publication, Hoy, dedicated to Spanish-language news oriented towards the Hispanic community: 60% of Hoy's readership speaks Spanish as their primary language . No other language came close, obviously. Am I really disparaging Hispanics and their paper, when I am saying a paper which has its own Spanish-language translation and primarily-Hispanic readership is better? I don't think so.

In any case, your outrage is amusing.

[pnwmom]

35. I'm not outraged, I'm amused. You're not helping your guy by disparaging a Latino

publication.

And there wasn't anything inaccurate in the article. So why are you shooting the Latino messenger?

[notadmblnd]

30. I doubt one poster here has the power to influence the Latino vote

by pointing out that "The Latin Times" is not a main stream paper for most Americans. If you really feel that the poster is disparaging the paper, why don't you alert?

[Hissyspit]

23. It's not news. It's a hit piece.

[JDPriestly]

13. It was an appropriation bill.

Do you please have a link to the bill you are talking about, the appropriations bill and the amendment?

I would like to read the original bill.


Here is what it concerned:

The outcry made it to Congress, where Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston, a Republican, introduced an amendment clearly directed at the Minutemen story. The amendment barred the Department of Homeland Security from providing “a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona.”

Kingston’s amendment overwhelmingly passed the Republican-controlled Congress, including the votes of 76 Democrats, most of them from the party’s then-strong Blue Dog conservative wing. Another person voted for the measure, too: Rep. Bernie Sanders, an independent in the midst of the campaign that would send him the U.S. Senate.

. . . .

Rep. Olav Sabo, a Minnesota Democrat and ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, was the sole member of his party to speak on the amendment.
. . . .

“If people want to put it in the bill, I guess that is okay because it apparently does nothing,” he quipped.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/in-2006-bernie-sanders-voted-in-support-of-an-immigration-co#.yfWwEKVMq

http://www.latintimes.com/bernie-sanders-supported-border-vigilante-minutemen-group-symbolic-2006-vote-357705

I'd like to read the actual bill. Please provide a link.

[pnwmom]

39. Here is info about his vote from ontheissues.org:

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Immigration.htm


Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.

Voting YES on this amendment supports the Minuteman Project, a group of volunteers who have taken on surveillance of the Mexican border for illegal immigrants. The amendment states that US funds will not be used to tell the Mexican government about the whereabouts of the Minuteman Project volunteers. Proponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are volunteer citizens doing what the federal government SHOULD be doing, but has failed to do. Opponents of the Minuteman Project say that they are vigilantes at best and anti-Mexican racists at worst. The amendment states:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.
• The amendment's sponsor said on its behalf:
• What this amendment does is it clarifies Congress' position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the US Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located.
• As a response to the lawlessness along the Mexican border, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington DC. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill.
• There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and their help has been productive and good.
• What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice.

Reference: Department of Homeland Security appropriations; Bill HR 5441 Amendment 968 ; vote number 2006-224 on Jun 6, 2006

[Divernan]

28. Source is the LATIN TIMES (?!?!?), not the Los Angeles Times

Aren't you just so clever and inventive, George II? Trying to pass off a piece in an obscure, non-award-winning, on-line publication as being from the prestigious Los Angeles Times?
The particular article is written by a newbie, self-proclaimed political journalist (whose resume reveals he started out as a stringer in Brazil for the World Cup in 2014 - WOOT! WOOT!)

Google "LA Times", folks - and you'll go to links re the Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times, commonly referred to as the Times or LA Times, is a paid daily newspaper published in Los Angeles, California, since 1881. It was the largest metropolitan newspaper in circulation in the United States in 2008 and the fourth most widely distributed newspaper in the country.[3] In 2000, the Tribune Company, parent company of the Chicago Tribune and local television station KTLA, purchased the Los Angeles Times when Tribune acquired its parent company, the Times Mirror Corporation.[4] The Times is currently owned by Tribune Publishing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Times

[JonLeibowitz]

36. Indeed, see post 18 and the downthread; apparently pointing out facts is offensive to Hispanics.

According to Hillary supporters, at least.

[MaggieD]

32. K&R

[onehandle]

33. Gun nuts are the most pathetic lunatics of all.

Glad I got that off my chest. Now to read the OP I posted it to.

I wonder what it's about?

[Ford_Prefect]

37. The OP misrepresents the source as the LA Times. Bogus Dude! Latin Times is not The LA TIMES.

False advertising 101.

The article is thin on specifics and asserts much on no evidence. I recall some high school journalism which it strongly resembles. Lots of opinion and remarks bordering on it.

I call Bullshit. Inflammatory hype that ought to be locked.