Bernie Sanders ran cross country and track! What were his times?

4 pages of comments and I still can't find out Bernie mile and three mile times?

4:37 indoor mile on the boards. I'm not sure about a 3 mile time for him.

uum wrote:

uum wrote:

Nope, the poor are not getting poorer. Everyone is getting richer.

No, you've guessed wrong. I don't think cities are filled with poor black people because they don't work hard.

We are not talking about what he has stodgy for in the past. We are talking about what he stands for now. And that is not equal rights. It is equal outcome at the expense of others.

Anything else you'd like to be completely wrong about?

"Stody" should be "stood up for"

Still not backing up your statements troll....

Whether you agree with Bernie or not, please read his official site to get an understanding of is actual views. You have not provided any factual information or links to it, to back up your biased hearsay that is just blatantly untrue.

As you can see from this link inflation has remain relatively constant and consumer price index has had a steady increase. This explains where your getting 'everyone is getting richer'. Maybe there getting more money then they used to but wealth is a better measurement for that. Which brings me to my next point. Wealth inequality in america. It is kind shocking how made it is.

You continue to get owned little troll. Now please kindly go back under your bridge, unless you can back up your opinion and have an intelligent conversation...."Doubtful, rube. Highly doubtful."

Fixed

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me a troll. The reason I didn't respond to your previous post was because I couldn't read it. Half of it was covered by an ad on this website.

Your previous post was wrong.

1) Trump did not say ban all Muslims or whatever it is that you are claiming. The website link that you yourself provided proves this. Presenting evidence against your own argument is proof that you have very bad reading comprehension.

2) Making another country pay for something that they did is not unfeasible. It happens all the time. The American Revolution has no similarities to this situation so I don't know why you brought that up.

Walls have been shown throughout history to work. Here again you demonstrate your idiocy by providing proof against your own argument - the Berlin Wall. It worked. It had other issues, but it worked at this goal. I wasn't even thinking about the Berlin Wall when I was talking about historical walls, so thanks for the support.

3) There's more to immigration/travel law than just the few lines in "Freedom of Religion" or the opinion in some BRITISH news website. Again, you are demonstrating your poor reading comprehension by providing against your own argument here. At least one of the "experts" in that article did not say it was unconstitutional.

You continue to be wrong about nearly everything. You provide proof for my arguments not yours. You refuse to admit when you are wrong. You refuse to accept or look into my facts.

I am unlikely to respond seriously again until you admit everything you have been wrong about so far, develop some reading comprehension ability, stop defeating your own arguments, and stop the personal attacks.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Monday his parents would never have thought their son would end up in the Senate and running for president. No kidding. He was a ne’er-do-well into his late 30s.

“It’s certainly something that I don’t think they ever believed would’ve happened,” the unabashed socialist remarked during CNN’s Democratic town hall forum, as polls show him taking the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire.

He explained his family couldn’t imagine his “success,” because “my brother and I and Mom and Dad grew up in a three-and-a-half-room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, and we never had a whole lot of money.”

It wasn’t as bad as he says. His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.

“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders 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. 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.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

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.

Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.

The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.

coach deez nuts wrote:

The people who support Bernie Sanders are the same ones who think if there is a $900 million dollar lottery and there are 300 million people everyone [sic] could get $3 million dollars if they just divided it up.

A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for mathematical illiteracy.

Oh, I thought people who were interested in Bernie Sanders are the same ones who thought that if many other industrialized countries in the world - let alone the most wealthy - had radically less expensive university education, far fewer people imprisoned, and successful single payer healthcare systems, then perhaps the US could move in that direction too.

A thoughtless bash on Bernie Sanders is more evidence for social (including fiscal) illiteracy

frontPageMaterial wrote:

Oh, I thought people who were interested in Bernie Sanders are the same ones who thought that if many other industrialized countries in the world - let alone the most wealthy - had radically less expensive university education, far fewer people imprisoned, and successful single payer healthcare systems, then perhaps the US could move in that direction too.

A thoughtless bash on Bernie Sanders is more evidence for social (including fiscal) illiteracy

Your post doesn't seem any less thoughtless than his. What does industrialization have to do with any of those things? That's cherrypicking. Compare the US to ALL countries.

Regarding imprisonment, committing crimes is a choice. It is not something that you are forced or even pressured to do.

The rest of your post is also wrong or inaccurate.

yeah no yeah no yeah no wrote:

You don't seem to give any facts at all. I agree with you the issue is regulation which have stated in the very post that you are replying to that that is all Bernie wants to do about wall street. Regulations were taken away recklessness caused the recession.

Bernie voted for the main piece of legislation that deregulated the derivatives market (Grahm-Leach-Biley). If acrimony-after-the-fact as opposed to prudent preventative regulation is his preferred method, perhaps he should hold himself "accountable".

PS not going to defend Trump who would be as much of a disaster as Bernie ...

rojo wrote:

Why? There is ZERO chance I vote for Hilary. The only house she should be sent to in the next few months is the jail house , not the White House.

It amazes me that people don't see the huge support that Trump and Sanders are getting is basically the same thing. Scores of people are sick and tired of the establishment politicians saying whatever is necessary to get elected and then not delivering.

THe mood is bad because the perception is that the US economu is not doing very well.

Given how much of a mess the rest of the world is and has been in the US economy is doing very well, but the voters generally don't understand this.

Unfortunately, the main issue with the US right now is that nothing can get passed because the government is so disfunctional. It's the stick-to-their-guns-at-all costs insurgent -- the "anger candidates" that deserve a lot of the credit for this.

If by 'make them pay' you mean put a small tax on wall street speculation then yes. Which can be classified under regulation.https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/

First, this is not a "small" tax at all. This will greatly increase transaction costs.

He needs ~70 billion dollars to fund his college plan but the industry he is "taxing" has a total (trading revenue) take of about 3 billion. He's not going to raise as much as he says he will, and a lot of the money he raises will come from your retirement savings. But he doesn't care because he sees your retirement savings as a little piggy bank to raid for his own purposes.

Second, regulators are bodies like the CFTC and SEC -- staffed by smart people who know what they are talking about and are given the power to act proactively and catching the bad actors before they can do serious harm instead of finger pointing indiscriminately after the fact when the worst has already happened. Bernie voted to weaken the CFTC.

Dodd-Frank strengthened regulators so that they can now prosecute some abusive market players they couldn't touch before.

The regulatory changes Sanders wants to pursue (going after the big banks) are neither relevant today nor were they relevant to the financial crisis. Problem is, on the subject of the finance industry, not only does he have no idea what he's talking about but he won't listen to anyone who does. Hillary by contrast has smart advisors and she listens to them. For example former CFTC (the regulatory body Sanders voted to weaken) chair Gary Gensler is one of her advisors.

Basically Sanders on this topic sounds like a rage candidate. He's long on the anger and short on the smarts. I don't like Hillary that much either but Bernie makes her look really good.

Oh my God, who cares about political opinions? This man claimed that he ran a 4:37 mile and we currently have no proof of that. Here's what I've seen.

1. He did in fact take third in the Brooklyn Champs in 1957. However, no time is connected to that race that I've seen-- just his recollection that he ran 4:37.

2. He ran 15:18 for the VCP, which is apparently 2.5 miles. That would put him at an 18:58 5k if he maintains the same pace.

So, he ran a 4:37 mile and a 19 minute 5k? Sounds fishy to me. Don't get me wrong, when I'm 74 I'll totally be lying about my PRs, but it seems Bernie might be a little off.

ladedah wrote:

My husband and I were talking about Sanders' policies during last night's town hall (hubby being more moderate than me). While husband likes Sanders' proposals, he doesn't feel he will be able to get them enacted when he is in office because Congress/Republicans will not pass such bills that will force these tax hikes or additional spending. Sanders will need more like-minded people voted into Congress either in 2016 or 2018 in order for his proposals to have any kind of chance of making it. Question is, will America vote for such representation to support Sanders if he gets elected president this fall?

finally someone talking some sense here

elflord wrote:

PS not going to defend Trump who would be as much of a disaster as Bernie ...

Elflord, you sound level-headed and rational, so I'll ask you why you won't defend Trump? What in particular would be "as much of a disaster" as Bernie?

I agree that there are things potentially disastrous about Trump but I consider him and his policies (the popular ones to criticize at least) to be far more logical, sensible, and accurate than Sanders'. He would be far less of a disaster than Bernie for different reasons I think.

The American right wing is broken and insane. At heart they have two economic values: work ethic and efficient profits. On one hand, they want more automation so they can pay fewer and fewer workers. But on the other hand, they want to make sure everyone keeps working. And they are comically unable to see how contradictory these two things are.

It has become impossible for workers to compete with automation for jobs, and as a result impossible for them to consume more products. A developed economy trades mostly in luxuries which an increasingly marginalized workforce is unwilling to buy. Employers respond by cutting payroll to keep profits up, a simulation of growth that serves to weaken demand even further. This elegant and tragic downward spiral has been going on for at least three decades but has been papered over by massive government spending, most of it military to avoid offending the right wing. It is no longer enough. A capitalist economy can't function without money flowing up the pyramid, and the only way to make that happen again is to start openly redistributing wealth.

GOP voters are afraid and confused because most of them are at least vaguely aware of this, but are so blindsided by irrelevant values like patriotism and religion that they never really give it much thought. Rather they place a simpleton's faith in laissez-faire economics to solve everything. If only the democrats would let corporations pay people less (as if they haven't already been letting them for 8 years), Adam Smith's magic hand would take that less money, spend it on corporate products and somehow turn it into more money.

The candidates vying for their votes all know that is absurd, but none dares voice an alternative. GOP voters don't know what to do, they only know what they don't like. That is why Trump is winning - he's the guy that doesn't like things. He is a caricature of the GOP electorate, and so has become their standard-bearer.

Sanders has reached the top for the same reason - dem voters aren't happy either and don't like the establishment. Obama has failed them in almost every way; only in bailing water out of the sinking economy by finding sneaky ways for the government to spend money has he had any effect. And while Hillary has supporters, she is much more widely disliked than liked. But Sanders does more than just dislike stuff - he does know what to do. He'd have a better chance of imposing the metric system on US highways, but it is the right course of action. That resonates.

This would not have been possible 4 years ago. Not even two years ago. Like it or not, a socialist candidate leading the polls is a sea change in the US.

And there's no reason he couldn't run a 18 minute 5k (XC presumably on a course of unknown type) and improve to 4:37 by spring.

uum wrote:

Elflord, you sound level-headed and rational, so I'll ask you why you won't defend Trump? What in particular would be "as much of a disaster" as Bernie?

I agree that there are things potentially disastrous about Trump but I consider him and his policies (the popular ones to criticize at least) to be far more logical, sensible, and accurate than Sanders'. He would be far less of a disaster than Bernie for different reasons I think.

We don't really know what Trump would do if elected because he has yet to articulate a credible position (e.g. something that would plausibly become enacted) on a substantive policy issue -- preferring instead to make outrageous statements thus avoiding any discussion of actual policy.

However, nativist saber rattling, appeals to "make America great again" (what time does he wish to travel back to ?), and protectionist/mecantilist saber rattling do not have a good track record as precursors to good policy decisions.

I find myself puzzled with his campaign -- he is so silly that I'm not sure he believes his own nonsense. It's almost as if he is trolling. It would be funny if he weren't one of the leading contenders in the election.

elflord wrote:.

I find myself puzzled with his campaign -- he is so silly that I'm not sure he believes his own nonsense. It's almost as if he is trolling. It would be funny if he weren't one of the leading contenders in the election.

Exactly what are you considering "his own nonsense"?

heat wrote:

Oh my God, who cares about political opinions? This man claimed that he ran a 4:37 mile and we currently have no proof of that. Here's what I've seen.

1. He did in fact take third in the Brooklyn Champs in 1957. However, no time is connected to that race that I've seen-- just his recollection that he ran 4:37.

2. He ran 15:18 for the VCP, which is apparently 2.5 miles. That would put him at an 18:58 5k if he maintains the same pace.

So, he ran a 4:37 mile and a 19 minute 5k? Sounds fishy to me. Don't get me wrong, when I'm 74 I'll totally be lying about my PRs, but it seems Bernie might be a little off.

As an old fart, I agree on your views but wonder, if his family was so poor, why didn't he work after school like I had to instead of "playing" a sport as I had to do as my immigrant parents thought sports were "play" and for rich people? so indeed, sounds a little (gefilte-) fishy, especially for a Jewish kid.

Second, since he was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, one of the nation's weed smoking centers, why isn't he appealing to Millenials by promising medical marijuana for everyone and getting endorsements from Snoop Dogg and Cheech and Chong? Unless, he considers that group as too lazy to get off the couch and vote.

It appears that the thread has gotten off track. That being said, all the political discourse is moot, as Bernie has no chance of being elected. I'd actually, however rather see him elected than Hillary, at least he has values.............misguided as they may be. Hillary is just plain corrupt, incompetent and a liar to boot. Go Bernie!!!!!