The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

A brief summary of Politicos investigation into Bernie Sanders bio.

After graduating from the University of Chicago, Bernie Sanders spent the next 17 years as a certified bum. Sanders got married and took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. Sanders, who collected unemployment through much of his failed political career, often ran on the platform that unemployment benefits should last until the recipient finds employment. Slightly self serving. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” Just as with his brief unsuccessful attempt at carpentry, his time as an aid at Head Start was short lived and didn't match what he listed on his resume.

At age 40 Sanders was elected as mayor of Burlington Vermont collecting his first steady paycheck in his life. Again, he graduated from a prestrgious university, and collected his first REAL PAYCHECK.........at 40.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name. All the assets provided in his financial disclosure form are his second wife’s. He does, however, have as much as $65,000 in credit-card debt.

Definitely different from the first 44.

We have spiraled a long way in the wrong direction to now have a proud socialist having become so popular with one of the major parties that he is this close to becoming president. It is exactly opposite of what America was based upon and what made us great. People have become so brainwashed with socialism over the years, and now we have Republicans who are socialists too, but just don't come out and say it.

I'm not sure which would be worse, a Democrat, or Trump. Trump and kasich are both really socialistic Democrats. Trump is a psycho, narcissistic A-hole, whos agenda is whatever pads his shallow ego for the moment. He believes in social medicine, and is the farthest thing from conservative.

Our founding fathers are turning in their graves right now, and if they were alive undoubtedly they would be looking for another revolution.

Yikes.

Unfortunately Sanders and Trump have both struck a chord with different sections of the electorate.

(02-27-2016 09:26 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Yikes.

Unfortunately Sanders and Trump have both struck a chord with different sections of the electorate.

The question is why? It's a complex and weird group of candidates, and I'm not sure who I can vote for. If it came down to Hillary/Trump in the general, I might lean toward the Donald, as Hillary comes across as a dishonest opportunist, and frankly, I'm tired of the Clintons. I've never seen such a collectively unqualified group of candidates. Romney would have won in a landslide this time around.

The majority of Americans now have no concept of self reliance, and think only that it is the governments role to take care of everything; be that education, health care, social regulation and behavior or manners in general, control of the stock market, or, of course, "creating jobs". The federal government is not our daddy. It role was supposed to be, and should always be, " limited". The Constitution was enacted to do just that, and to protect, against all threats, foriegn and domestic, freedoms and liberties of INDIVIDUALS!

The government should never be a barior to individuals choices. Too often even Republicans get this wrong. Why shouldn't two people who are the same sex be able to marry? If you are a conservative and a believer in individual freedoms you should fight for that choice, just as you would for any other liberty. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

The President doesn't create jobs in America, and either does any other part of government. Any effort or legislation intended to do so results in harm to our economy. Free enterprise allows the economy to breed jobs, and the more free our free enterprise system becomes the more jobs will open up, and the better our economy will become. Millionaires and billionaires should be rewarded, not punished. They are the embodiment of an enocomy that is working, and serve as a representation of success, and motivation to work, invent, invest, and achieve.

I would love to see someone say these things out loud in an election, but candidates either don't understand these basic principles, or they do but are afraid it will scare voters off, because we have evolved into such a dependent society. Rubio has said a few of these things, but seems afraid to hammer them.

Whether you agree with me or not, the American direction is falling fast, and it is sad.

Quote:We have spiraled a long way in the wrong direction to now have a proud socialist having become so popular with one of the major parties that he is this close to becoming president.

The one thing I think we can say about BS is that he has a "core".

That's an unusual trait for a politician.

(02-27-2016 09:39 AM)BCBronco Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 09:26 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Yikes.

Unfortunately Sanders and Trump have both struck a chord with different sections of the electorate.

The question is why? It's a complex and weird group of candidates, and I'm not sure who I can vote for. If it came down to Hillary/Trump in the general, I might lean toward the Donald, as Hillary comes across as a dishonest opportunist, and frankly, I'm tired of the Clintons. I've never seen such a collectively unqualified group of candidates. Romney would have won in a landslide this time around.

I hate to admit it BC, but I'm not certain I would vote for Trump over Hillary. That's a commentary on how bad I feal about Trump right now, not that I don't think Hillary would be disastrous.

(02-27-2016 09:42 AM)ESSSS Wrote:  

Quote:We have spiraled a long way in the wrong direction to now have a proud socialist having become so popular with one of the major parties that he is this close to becoming president.

The one thing I think we can say about BS is that he has a "core".

That's an unusual trait for a politician.

Well, that is true. But so did Hitler, Mussolini and Satan.

....and I was just thinking, boy I've been great this year in avoiding to piss people off with my political commentary. Thanks dip. You bait me in....

(02-27-2016 09:39 AM)BCBronco Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 09:26 AM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Yikes.

Unfortunately Sanders and Trump have both struck a chord with different sections of the electorate.

The question is why? It's a complex and weird group of candidates, and I'm not sure who I can vote for. If it came down to Hillary/Trump in the general, I might lean toward the Donald, as Hillary comes across as a dishonest opportunist, and frankly, I'm tired of the Clintons. I've never seen such a collectively unqualified group of candidates. Romney would have won in a landslide this time around.

(02-27-2016 09:53 AM)brovol Wrote:  ....and I was just thinking, boy I've been great this year in avoiding to piss people off with my political commentary. Thanks dip. You bait me in....

I was thinking the same thing, got pretty heated last election season. I'll concurr, thanks Dip.

Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

(02-27-2016 10:46 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

Sums up my feelings as well.

But the whole field, on both sides of the aisle....they're all pretty terrible. This election really is a clown show.

I don't know why it's so hard for a decent person that's politically moderate to be a candidate. Maybe it's too boring for the majority of Americans.

(02-27-2016 10:46 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

Why does he scare you more that "others"?

Hillary would easily be the most dishonest President in history.

(02-27-2016 12:18 PM)okgc Wrote:  Hillary would easily be the most dishonest President in history.

I also agree with this.

She is just so sketchy. Her whole campaign is built on lies, manipulation, pandering, deceit, and dirty money.

Ugh, I just want one decent candidate.

(02-27-2016 12:43 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:18 PM)okgc Wrote:  Hillary would easily be the most dishonest President in history.

I also agree with this.

She is just so sketchy. Her whole campaign is built on lies, manipulation, pandering, deceit, and dirty money.

Ugh, I just want one decent candidate.

What constitutes a decent candidate from your perspective?

(02-27-2016 11:11 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 10:46 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

Sums up my feelings as well.

But the whole field, on both sides of the aisle....they're all pretty terrible. This election really is a clown show.

I don't know why it's so hard for a decent person that's politically moderate to be a candidate. Maybe it's too boring for the majority of Americans.

Why is moderate good? People need to determine; what is the presidents role? It isn't to legislate. Look at Article 2.

Younger folks have little perspective for history and the importance of the constitution because at some point the American education system became more liberal, and those things were not a valued element of fundamental education.

If we have slipped way too far left in our country, then finding a "moderate" is just putting another log on the fire. Likewise, if we had been leaning too far to the right, then the same would be true. What made America different than the rest, and gave us greatness, and the envy of people worldwide, is our constitution, individual liberties, and our free enterprise system. Anything less than that is wrong; even if it isn't popular by all.

(02-27-2016 12:50 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 11:11 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 10:46 AM)Hoekjeness Wrote:  Anybody but Trump.

Truly scary if he gets elected Prez.

Sums up my feelings as well.

But the whole field, on both sides of the aisle....they're all pretty terrible. This election really is a clown show.

I don't know why it's so hard for a decent person that's politically moderate to be a candidate. Maybe it's too boring for the majority of Americans.

Why is moderate good? People need to determine; what is the presidents role? It isn't to legislate. Look at Article 2.

Younger folks have little perspective for history and the importance of the constitution because at some point the American education system became more liberal, and those things were not a valued element of fundamental education.

If we have slipped way too far left in our country, then finding a "moderate" is just putting another log on the fire. Likewise, if we had been leaning too far to the right, then the same would be true. What made America different than the rest, and gave us greatness, and the envy of people worldwide, is our constitution, individual liberties, and our free enterprise system. Anything less than that is wrong; even if it isn't popular by all.

WMU flyboy .... you are up next!

(02-27-2016 12:47 PM)gobaseline Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:43 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote:  

(02-27-2016 12:18 PM)okgc Wrote:  Hillary would easily be the most dishonest President in history.

I also agree with this.

She is just so sketchy. Her whole campaign is built on lies, manipulation, pandering, deceit, and dirty money.

Ugh, I just want one decent candidate.

What constitutes a decent candidate from your perspective?

Someone honest and hardworking. Not scandalous. Not extremist or bigoted in their views. Willingness to cooperate and compromise. Someone inclusive rather than divisive.

Just a few qualities off the top of the head.