Bernie Sanders

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
I constantly read fawning articles and blogs about Sanders, or comments about how good he would be as President, and so on. [1] Which on one hand is fine, I really don’t care who you like or want to vote for. (Though I do feel embarrassed for the papers bad journalism). But I really only care what truths you’ll sacrifice for your agenda. And most Sanders supporters either don’t know about the guy, or think that lies of omission are OK, if you really care enough.. Here's what I found doing a little research.
Issue Lie Truth
Bernie Sanders He's a nice democratic socialist, which just means he wants us to be more like Socialist Scandinavia, but he's honest, moderate, and successful. He was a radical socialist and a failure, that has accomplished little but figuring out how to mooch off a hippie state by telling them he was their man to get the free stuff (take stuff from others). Scandinavia is far from utopia, and they are not socialist. And he’s a bit two-faced, like he plays anti-war, except for his support of the wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Kosovo, and for the F-35 or any military program in his state. He talks the working man, while he made millions off the government and has multiple homes. And so on.

Early years

A member of the Young Socialists League, he never met an individual liberty that he cared about (at least more than the collectives power). In Denmark they have a concept called the Law of Jante — which is basically that the individual isn't worth shit, and those that try to achieve and stand out are arrogant pricks. While he isn’t world-wise or well versed enough to comment on that, it sums up his philosophy in a nutshell. As someone joked, he'd make a good President... of Sweden: but that's not true, since they are much more pro-Business than most think (lower Corporate taxes than the U.S. for example), even they don't believe in killing the Golden Goose.

He’s a social justice warrior, which is the opposite of a civil libertarian / individualist (you can’t be both) — so he’s against civil liberties on:

  • everyone should be a ward of the state/collective
  • they should have fewer freedoms wrt price and wage controls (pro minimum wage, despite evidence against it)
  • selectively against free speech and freedom of religion (politically correct)
  • gun rights: if you’re trying to create a police state, then only the police should have guns — he’s rated F by the NRA
  • for more intrusions on individuals and business owners with more taxes, regulations, laws
  • against individuals keeping their property (pro-taxes and pro-eminent domain) - he supports a 90% top income tax, 65%+ inheritance tax (at the federal level, more at the state) - there would be no economic liberty under Sanders
  • of our four most important natural rights: life, liberty, property, and the right to defend them -- he’d curtail the second, eliminate the 3rd and 4th -- on the first (life) he’s mixed but mostly against killing criminals (death penalty) but for killing full term, viable babies (for any reason) and making other people pay for it (against their religious liberty): 100% NARAL / 0% NRLC -- there's zero balance, nuance or thought in those partisan extremes
  • he believes whole heartedly in anything that empowers government and diminishes the power of the people. Loves the Global Warming arguments (hates the science) and loves/supports environmental extremism, but mixed on GMO's (Forced labeling is good, but doesn't think they're actually bad for you).

The exceptions on being anti-civil rights are:

  • his support for LGBT, which he’s supported since the 70’s
  • he opposes the patriot act, probably because government spied on Unions, socialists and other radicals, and he still sympathizes with anyone that would bring the current system down (a child of the 70’s, he hates "the man", but wants to empower the man with everything except making informed decisions).
  • he's also great with minority rights (NAACP gave him 100%), of course those rights don’t extend to minority businesses owners, only the workers. (E.g. unions love him, businesses and the economy would hate him).
  • he’s pro-criminal, with wanting to remove sentencing guidelines, amnesty for illegal aliens, no one should be held accountable for their actions, unless they succeed at life, then they should be punished

Rebel without a clue

You could not find a more left leaning candidate: he's extreme as they come.

  • As a College kid he was involved or had associations with the Young People’s Socialist League. I don't think the dumbest thing you did in College is relevant to who you are 50 or 100 years later, but the Democrats seem to think that what Romney did in Prep School was attack worthy. And the issue is more whether people denounce or have grown since the mistakes of youth: Bernie has shown zero evidence of maturing as he ages. He matures more like rotting meat than a fine wine.
  • Sanders was asked to leave a hippie commune for being too lazy[2]
  • Sanders joined the Vermont Liberty Union Party in 1971, which describes themselves as "a nonviolent socialist party" (and ran for Governor twice on their ticket 1972, 1976, and failed, with never more than single digit support), then he was their chairperson for a few years after that.[3]
  • He wrote in an op-ed that Congress should “institute public ownership, with worker control, of the major means of production" and told the Bennington Banner that a “sane society” required that “capital has to be controlled by the people.”[4]
  • He backed backed Benjamin Spock (Socialist Workers Party ) as a presidential candidate: calling for a maximum income of $55,000.[5]
  • By 1980 he served as a presidential elector for the Socialist Workers’ Party (Trotskyists, whose platform was the total abolition of capitalism and economic freedom). And he still labels himself a Democratic Socialist (an oxymoron). [6] Reagan said, "government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem". Sanders is no Reagan, he's the anti-Reagan.
  • In 1988 he Honeymooned in the USSR, because that's where his heart was. [7]
  • Bernie plays the poor kid with "my family lived in three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn" -- but they sent him to the University of Chicago, where he got a B.A. in Political Science. Then proceeded to do nothing but be a radical and agitator, driving around in his bondo covered VW bug, until he got his first real job at the age of 40 as mayor of Burlington (by a margin of 10 votes). If you call government politician a "real job".
  • His first wife divorced him quickly, he had a kid out of wedlock with another woman
  • He tried to be an carpenter before failing at that
  • He tried his hand freelance writing for far left rags like the Vermont Freeman with such gems as "Man and Woman" where he said that while having sex, every woman fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.
  • Then he tried his hand at creating documentaries for public television, but even they have standards.
  • He was and is a hippie, and according to his friends, "The only thing he was every good at, is talking non-stop about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off", and he found an audience in the Hippie Enclaves of Vermont, but that's a long ways from being a competent or qualified Presidential Candidate.
  • To this day, despite a $200K Senator's Salary, all he has to his name is over $65K in credit card debt (virtually everything is in his wife's name). Never since Truman have we had a Presidential Candidate that achieved less in his life. [8]
NOTE: I don't hate hippies. But there are a few kinds of hippies. The hard working kind, that wanted to be in a commune, free love, get stoned, but also could hold a job, help out around the farm, and fund their own lifestyle. Or the ones that liked parts of the lifestyle, but could admit/learn some of the shortcomings and grow. I love and respect those kinds, and don't judge their choices in life, even if they aren't mine. Then there's stoner living in his mom's basement, railing about the bitch that won't raise his allowance, and who steals other kids bikes:the hippie-ocrites that want to fix the problems with tyranny, by becoming the tyrants. Bernie isn't the adorable former kind of hippie.

His entire political History is Socialist: tax more from everyone, give to the select few, empower government (take power from the people). He's a die hard National Socialist, wrapped in the Camouflage of Democrat Socialist[9]. But socialists by nature believe that only the state has claims on property and he supports nationalizing most major industries and giving them “to the workers/unions” (“worker cooperatives”, which means no property rights for individuals). He’s against and and all free trade, preferring isolationism and protectionism. There’s never been a give-away of other people’s money that he didn’t support. Free healthcare, free schools, free university, free student loans, free paid leave, for rent controls and housing subsidies, for $15 minimum wage, and so on. Even Veterans, he’s for giving them far more compensation (even if he opposes almost everything else to do with the military). If it’s your money, he wants to spend it for you. Greece looks like deficit hawks compared to him.

His energy policy is simple: if it drives up cost, and down availability, he supports it. Against Oil and Coal and Nuclear, for Solar, Wind because they’re unreliable, expensive and unsustainable -- so he supports the poverty that would bring with it.


In War Hawk <-> Dove spectrum, he’s not the anti-War candidate the left pretends. He crows about how he was against the Iraq war, and he's more isolationist than Ron Paul -- but his Code Pink buddies don't trust him: he did support the 2001 authorization of military force against terror, which was the justification for going into Afghanistan and Iraq: and Bernie will support the military industrial complex, as long as the people making the gattling guns were unionized and in his state. So Bernie is a radical lefty, but mostly a partisan one, and not AS much a radical lefty as some of the furthest radical lefties would like, thus he still can’t attract the fringe of the fringe. But to anyone near the middle, it’s hard to tell a Marxist from a Leninist or a Maoist, either way, you still end up in a re-education camp.

Yes, he was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam war, but that was strictly to dodge the draft: if he was a consistent life-long pacifist, I’d respect that. But he’s not. He claimed the exception to being a pacifist, "when people threaten the United States or threaten our allies, or commit genocide, the United States, with other countries, should be prepared to act militarily.” If he was consistent with that, I’d respect that too, only his actions belie his words:

  1. he supported the tyranny/brutality of the Communists in Vietnam
  2. he was perfectly fine with the genocide in Cambodia, Laos, Kampuchea and Somalia (opposing action)
  3. Saddam Hussein’s brutal oppression and conquest in Iraq and Kuwait was fine with him (he opposed both wars)
  4. after the worlds intelligence agencies were claiming Saddam was working on WMDs. He didn’t oppose it because he didn’t believe the intelligence, but because he didn’t care if Saddam or Iran gets the bomb or not (it's not about threats to the nation or world)
  5. then he voted in favor of a military response in Afghanistan (claiming they attacked first)
  6. he was for bombing in Kosovo/Yugoslavia in 1999, but not for troops to stop the genocide
  7. he supported the F-35, as long as it is stationed in Vermont
  8. he was for regime change and bombing in Libya (even though they hadn’t attacked us)
  9. Syria he was against no-fly zones and helping the rebels, but supported Obama bombing ISIS

He seems to take a pretty partisan line on War — if the Democrats are for it, he’s for it. (He hasn’t opposed Obama on drone strikes or anything). It’s only when it’s a Republican in office that he really opposes war, unless it brings jobs to his State. So I have troubles with that consistency. [10]


Bernie is wrong about everything (economic).

He loves citing the Gini Coefficient: this is a long debunked junk-science metric invented by Corrado Gini, who literally wrote the book on The Scientific Basic of Fascism. If it's wrong and proven false, Sanders is even worse than Elizabeth Warren at regurgitating hit. The falsehoods about Sexism, War on Women, Gender Wage Gap Myths, Keynesian Spending, Minimum Wage, the discredited "evaporating middle class" (because the middle class moved into the upper classes), and so on. If it's dumb, disproven and untrue, then Bernie and his supporters will be repeating it. If you want to know what Bernienomics would look like, just follow in the footsteps of Hugo Chavez'z Venezuela, they had all the same policies.

People talk about his "integrity", but you can't pay for 1/10th of his programs on the backs of the rich (if you've casually glanced at the numbers): he's either raising the taxes on the middle class, or bankrupting the nation. You can seize all the wealth from the top, and not cover one of his programs. Thus, he's either completely incompetent and can't do 8th grade math and should be disqualified -- or he's bald face lying (as his constituents are). [11]


He's highly popular with coastal progressives, in a nation that's already tired of leftist polariziation, and more likely for the pendulum to swing back. Democrats haven't won two different Presidencies in a row since one of them took a bullet. So not on their own since FDR.

But let's ignore that Sanders is not electable in a general election, and that America (at large) does not want a Jewish National Socialist failure of a man, polarizing and dividing the country by vilifying americans (for not giving up more of their freedom), attacking minorities (like the rich, gun owners, religious), and empowering the collective over individuals. So let's ignore common sense, and pretend he could win.

Even if he won, there's only two choices:

  • Impotence
  • Insurrection

The only way Sanders could be a tidal wave shift in politics, is if he won with the landslides Reagan did (and got Congress/Senate as well) to have any traction, and there doesn't appear to be any hope of that. Otherwise he'd be a lame duck from day one, as feckless and incompetent as his miserable little hippie life has been (railing against the man, while desperately trying to become the tyrant he always imagine CEO's to be): with no support from the legislative branch (or people). All air. So he stands a minuscule chance of winning, but a far far smaller chance of being transformative or even moderately accomplished.

But let's smoke some of his pot, play make-believe, and visit the delusional world of his supporters. Pretend he not only wins, but wins in a landslide (gets both houses to go with him), and they get the legislative majorities to do everything they want in their first two years (like Obama had). Even if that did happen, it still that wouldn't be a tidal shift from Obama (like Reagan was with Carter), it would just be more of the same, only worse. And all that he would do, if he did get that landslide, is divide and polarize America even more (by generation, income and geography), and probably lead to insurrection. (He's closer to being the next Lincoln than the next Reagan).

Progressive ideals (one group telling others what they should do, "for their own good") always leads to more friction and polarization. And that's the heart of Bernie's message. Some might think tolerance at gunpoint is worth it, to get what they want, but control freaks always get resistance. Thus there would be more friction, violence, and backlash -- as always happens when revolutionaries get control. Then what? Does he ignore it (and prove the incompetence of government), or more likely, crack down on it, in the name of security, and turn us into a hippie police state? I see that as a choice of bad or badder.

So the only real question is would Bernie squeak out a win (and have zero power/influence), or win in landslide (highly unlikely) and lead to a highly contentious Presidency (more than Obama), and be the straw that broke the camels back and cause 4+ years of civil unrest? I don't see a path where Bernie can transform America into anything better, and thus to me, his supporters are deluding themselves if they think otherwise. Like everything else in his life, all roads lead to failure until he learns to grow from his past, and rethinks his entire philosophy in life. But if he's made it to 74 with the philosophy of an angry teenage hippie, wanting to live in his Mommy-State's basement and have his parents give him a bigger allowance, then there's little hope in him wizening up soon. But I think his life and views are serving as a great warning to the next generations: "don't be like Bernie".


  1. Puff Pieces:
  2. Asked to leave a Hippie Commune for being too lazy:
  3. Vermont Liberty Union Party:
  4. Socialism, "control the means of production":
  5. Benjamin Spock support:
  6. Democratic Socialist:
  7. Back in USSR:
  8. Some greatest hits:
  9. Democratic Socialism:
  10. Bernie on War:
  11. Bernienomics:

Links to more



Someone debated with me that Bernie didn't want to take anyone's liberty away and make us less free. (Thus there would be no conflict by the people have their liberties trampled).

So I pointed out:

  • 1) Income Redistribution - (less liberty)
  • 2) Socialized College - more central control = less liberty
  • 3) Less Political Free Speech - (less liberty)
  • 4) Centralized Price and Wage Controls - (less liberty)
  • 5) Centralized Price and Wage Controls - (less liberty)
  • 6) Socialized anti-energy/economy for faux climate change agenda - more regulation (less liberty)
  • 7) Rewarding violating immigration laws
  • 8) Racial Injustice - more central control = less liberty
  • 9) Sexual Preferences/bigotry - more central control = less liberty
  • ... We could go on and on...
  • Not to mention more taxes (less liberty)
  • a stronger government/regulatory environment (less liberty)
  • and so on.

You can like him because he takes away choices of people you disagree with (and you're anti-liberty). But denying he's against free will, choice, liberty and so on, is just self-delusion. He's a centralized government authoritarian. Every time he says free, he means, "let's make other people pay for it". Again, I don't have problems with people making the choice towards tyranny honestly. But the ones that are self-deluded or try to delude others, really gets my goat.

I've also heard a rationalization that the reason they like Bernie is because he's an anti-establishment (anti-Campaign money) candidate that doesn't take money from corporate interests. I point out that's only true because none of them think he can win, and if that's their criteria, Trump takes even less from others (is more self-funded), so their argument is a canard. They get mad at that, but it's still a fact. The strongest reason to like Bernie is because he's the anti-liberty (pro-Socialist) candidate: but many look for any other reason to support him than that truth.


Also, like Obama and Hillary before him, he appears to be taking in many illegal donations. The media looks the other way, I mean what could he do? Put something on his site to filter by country? Oh wait, that would take no time — you have to enable foreign credit cards as an option. [1]

Iraq War

Bernie got everything wrong:

What I heard is:

  • (a) Saddam was not an imminent threat -- unlike lesser threats such as Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and other places that Democrats supported (and he did too). He was hypocritical!
  • (b) that while all the intelligence agencies of the world said he had Chemical/Biological WMD's, and was working on Nukes, that they are "unlikely to initiate an attack on the United States". But he was sponsoring terrorism against Israel, harboring terrorist training camps, violating the terms of the cease fire, and violating 18 different UN resolutions. Missed the point.
  • (c) Bernie warned that us going in might encourage Saddam to launch a chemical or biological counter-attack. (So he thought the weapons existed, and was as wrong as Bush). He just didn't care if he used them on neighbors, again (brown skinned people don't matter). He just didn't want American lives lost. Ethically questionable premise at best!
  • (d) he implied he would have been for it, if the U.N. was behind it (as if that changes the morality/ethics), and we later found out the oil-for-food program was entirely corrupted and Russia, France and Germany were all getting rich and happy trading weapons illegally, and the U.N. new and had scandals around it. So he was wrong to trust the U.N. and unethical to imply that their support changed anything.
  • (e) He wanted to deal with the dot-com bubble and lost investments. (as if it is the governments job to create moral hazard). He was wrong on that topic.
  • (f) Complained about trade-deficit, poverty and implied the President had done nothing -- but he already had with his tax cuts, etc -- which caused a much faster and better rebound after Clinton's dot-com crash, than Obama did by using the long discredited Keynesian wasteful spending. So Bernie was wrong, and lying on that sub-topic. He might not of liked how it was addressed, but it had been addressed far better than prior and later Democrat responses.
  • (g) Has not heard how many lives would die. (which is irrelevant to the ethics BTW). But the Iraq war losses were far lower than any of the estimates. No one estimated only a few thousand American deaths. More would have been lost by stationing troops in DC, Detroit or Chicago. And most of the "losses" invented by America haters in Iraq, were people we can't track (e.g. they left), not actual body counts. The war cost less than any other war in history. The insurrection (civil war) afterwards is where all the lives were lost. But those were on Iraqi's, not the U.S.
  • (h) He said "War should not be the first recourse". He's ignoring the 12 years, and thousands of efforts to not go to war. He can argue that it still wasn't enough, but he lied in implying this wasn't the last recourse, and we hadn't tried sanctions, resoltuions, and things for 12 years that had failed.
  • (i) he claims it set a precedent of preemptive war. Which shows that Bernie was both a hypocrite and a moron. Revolutionary, 1812, civil war, spanish-american, mexican american, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, Kosovo, Panama, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and a few others, were all preemptive and more precedent setting (and he supported a few of those). So he's a liar and a fool.
  • (j) He claims Iraq would destroy the "International Terrorism" cooperation efforts we had to that date. He was 100% wrong. Ghaddafi gave up WMD's after we invaded, Syria and Lebanon both straightened up their acts, Palestine started talking peace (for a while), most of the terrorist sponsors cleaned up (short term), and we made huge strides once the U.S. showed they would back up their words with actions. Over the next decade (especially after Obama took over) that was diluted with time. But the immediate response was the exact opposite of what the hippie-ocrite predicted.
  • (k) it could be expensive. OK. He was right -- but it was far far less expensive than the ACA that Sanders supported, it was less than Porkulus and Obama's have of TARP. And cost us less than 9/11 had. So it wasn't cheap, but that hypocrite wasn't to spend 10x as much on his pork programs, so he loses the right to whine about expense of a $1T war, when he's advocating around $18T in programs.
  • (l) he was right that other regimes might topple (but Bush had predicted that -- and it was the intent to get those democracies). He was wrong on Palestine (which cooled down for a while). In fact, none of the chaos he predicted happened, until nearly a decade after the war, and only when we replace our leadership with a feckless leader that diluted our power in the region, did those problems manifest. Some might think there was a causal relationship there. (Our unwillingness to act, and Obama's efforts to withdraw, emboldened the bad elements)?
  • (m) he called it a unilateral invasion -- yet it had more global support than Obama got for Libya, or Clinton had for Kosovo -- so what he means by that is, "i'm a partisan hypocrite that will lie for my causes, and hope my base is biased enough to not call me on it". But there's no objective standard where Bush would be wrong, and Obama/Clinton would be right. Either they're all wrong, or they're all justified.
  • (n) he said the weapons inspectors that had failed for 12 years, should have been allowed to do their job. After we invaded, we found that Saddam had facilities within facilities that they'd missed for decade+. They also failed on Iran a few times. In fact they never stopped a country from ever getting Nukes: India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa, Israel, are just a few of their failures. So the delusion that they matter is the ramblings of a senile old clueless hippie.

He total failed to predict that WMD's wouldn't be found. So the basis of his argument was they were there, but he didn't care. And that we should continue with the U.N. failure to stop them for 12 years, and ignore their sponsorship of terror. Yeah, what a genius. He agreed with many people that war might be expensive (to help them rebuild), there were no guarantees in it, and then got everything else wrong.

Video of Bernie being outplayed, then painting himself in a corner, and getting outplayed again

A little long with all Bernie's dancing/dodging/distracting. But the basics are Bernie believes that 51% of the population can vote away others people's rights, even if they don't have the right to do that individually. Basically you get to see a petulant little man that can't hold his own intellectually, and has a polite tantrum and leaves.

You'd think that a lifelong Trotskyist would be able to defend where he's coming from, "what are the limits of government power, and why". You know he was one of those dipshit hippies that would argue with you about the evils of the proletariat until you wanted to beat him senseless, back in this youthful 40's. And to this day his style is the same. You say something he doesn't like, and he filibusters about a different point.

Q: Bernie, exactly what crime do you think the Bankers committed to cause the financial meltdown?
A: Let me tell you about the evils of Wall St…. {insert blah blah Marxist rhetoric here, without ever answering the question}

Also FWIW, Bernie is wrong on what he's thinks the Interviewer is asking. He tries to build a strawman, "is every law some sort of forceful attack on innocent people". Then Bernie tries to burn that simpler argument down, but he can’t even do that. That premise is fact. Every law is a set of rules by which the government threatens life, liberty or property if you don't comply with it. That’s why they are laws, instead of suggestions or requests. Thus laws ARE the THREAT of a forceful attack on OTHERWISE innocent people. And threats only have value/traction if they'll be carried out (at least some of the time). If what they're doing warrants that attack (like they're hurting/endangering others), then that threat/action is justified. If they aren't, then it isn’t. But a law always comes with a threat of punishment.

So first he tries to make invent a short-bus version of an question that the interviewer isn’t saying, (so he can argue against it), but his own question wasn’t remedial enough for him to defend against himself. It was like watching Cybil lose an argument with herself.

English is hard

Bernie tweeted the following
Bernie knows as much about the English Language as he does about economics -- missing the difference between a noun and an adjective... not to mention the bigger miss of all logic and reality (like it was Wall St.'s capital liquidity and investment that has enabled the U.S.'s economic growth).

A rebuttal was:

  • In Venezuela the socialists run out of toilet paper.
  • In the U.K. the socialists run out of hospital beds.
  • In the U.S.S.R. they ran out of housing.
  • In China they ran out of food.
  • But in the U.S.A. the socialists run out of nouns.

A friend defended him with, “probably just one of his Interns"
To which I replied, "Agreed... Maybe if he paid them $15/hour livable wage, they'd do a better job?"

Bernie is highly mock-worthy, based on the number of meme's against his ridiculous socialist views. There are the memes that mock Bernie. more...


2015.07.28 2016.01.30 2016.02.03