You might want to look for a secondary source.

I'm using that one because it's concise.

You might want to check out these links and consider adding them to the end for support:

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Bernie-Sanders-joined-a-party-that-supported-Iran-during-hostage-crisis-614524

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7088909/Sanders-campaigned-radical-Socialist-Workers-Party-investigated-FBI.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernies-past-with-the-far-far-far-left

before people had so much time to dig in this much. (Although the pros would have gotten to this stuff so I should probably revise my thinking that he might have won in 2016.)

He has ZERO chance this year unless the GOP completely implodes, even more than they already have .. and they won't. The combination of "moron vote" plus electoral college, puts us at a huge disadvantage to start with.

(Never mind that for all the warts, a Sanders presidency would be SO much better than Trump's. It's irrelevant if it can't happen.)

He would never have even gotten past the early states then.

I'm glad they're vetting him now when they didn't vet him then.

It has remained largely unknown to the general public partially due to obfuscation and partially due to the fact that his Democratic opponents have not hammered him with "opposition research."

But he would never survive a general election with his record.

Let's not make a yuge mistake.

I wasn't wrapped up in 2016 and couldn't make up my mind until the day before the primary in my state when I decided to go with Hillary. I could have easily gone for Sanders, too. It was a last minute decision for me and I really didn't pay a lot of attention to it. I've always mostly gone with the flow in these things and always vote for the Democrats in general elections because my family always did that.

It was a 2 person race, and she was ahead, so her team made the strategic decision to not attack.

Now, it's a 5 way race, and sanders has gone low against several. Glass, meet stone.

But people here are correct, he is un-electable in the GE. He will get railroaded to an epic loss, and democracy along with him.

Four years later, he backed and campaigned for the SWP presidential nominee Mel Mason, a former Black Panther, saying it was important for there to be "fundamental alternatives to capitalist ideology

writing off someone because they are or have been a Black Panther?

a Black Panther is irrelevant. It is all about options for Sanders so people don't have to vote for a Democrats...as you might imagine, as a Democrat, I object to this sort of thing. vote blue no matter who...not third party.

as a way of saying someone is a well understood bad person is exactly what I am objecting to so it is relevant. As far as I know many Black Panthers are registered as Democrats and run as such.

That's your highlight, not the writer's. If you go to Mel Mason's wikipedia page you'll see that the FIRST sentence under "Political Activism" is

The author uses it as one of his points to discredit Mr. Mason.

Where does he use it as a point to discredit Mr, Mason?

it is all part of praising Russia, China, and Cuba. As a white person who knows and talks to lots of white people Black Panther is used to describe dangerous black people. I have to admit I am only speculating from what I read. Maybe the author has a deep respect for the Black Panthers and my cynicism is keeping me from seeing that.

Like Mr. Mason, Congressman Bobby Rush is a former Black Panther.

as part of the laundry list of things bad about people Sanders endorsed/endorses.

Later in the article, the author gives another description based on Mr. Mason's work and affiliations since that run:

the author used Black Panther had no racial animus, I'm skeptical of his intentions. I see us at an impasse and can't think of anything more to add.

all as biographical details. If there were racial animus, that list would probably have been shorter.

can add to what we have said before.

choice other than Democrats...I don't even remember any Black Panthers so it is meaningless to me.

have registered as Democrats and run as such. I don't honestly recall anyone running for office as a Black Panther.

....that the FIRST sentence under "Political Activism" is

...except that implied by you.

that it indicates being a Black Panther is one of the things wrong with Mr. Mason.

I just don't care. That seems to be ancient history to me.

to be an example of a bad thing that people Sanders endorsed did. I believe the Black Panthers were a very good organization that was one of the chief victims of cointelpro.

And I don't think any would disagree that he has...

sanders is a very weak candidate who would be destroyed. The Clinton campaign had a 101 page memo with 1000 pages of back up of oppo on sanders but never had to use because sanders was never a serious candidate.

Link to tweet

No exceptions.

If they are going to run by pointing out contradictions or problematic actions in other candidate's records, their own are going to be pointed out.

No exceptions.

I anticipate much anger over this, and not much in the way of explanations.

years to try to get something on a candidate is not helpful IMO. Lets talk about the here and now. And BTW, I said the same thing about people using this same tactic to try to get Biden for something he did a long time ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=429339

That makes it current. He could disavow his former positions, but won't.

So the age of the issue becomes current.

said in response. I can't rely on paraphrasing

...defend and support the Cuba Revolution and subsequent government?

Where was Sanders during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Oh wait, that was during JFK's administration - the President who Sanders said made him physically nauseated.

Trump wil eviscerate, pulverize , puree and excoriate Sanders over this and he will lose 49 states.

Anyone who thinks he has any chance in the GE has extremely thick blinders on AND is very high on koolaid.

Goodbye Sanders -- drop out already. You're no Democrat, you're a Marxist in Democratic clothing.

"But his personal files from his time as mayor of Burlington, from 1981 to 1989, archived at the University of Vermont, show that he supported and campaigned for the communist SWP and maintained a close relationship with its senior members."

Social justice did have/will have people who support it, irrelevant of labels, and those who don't, because of labels.

It's vetting. It's shining the light.

It reminds me of that Jeremiah Wright nonsense.

The generational split is striking to me.

I can think of a lot worse things!