Can Bernie Feel the Bern yet?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh please Red. First, Cher is not a Trump supporter even though that ''thread'' suggested in it's convoluted manner that she is.

But more to the point of Bernie, we both know that he rails against the 1%. But the one percent he rails against are not those who manage to have a windfall income such as he has with the sale of his books. Those he rails against are the ruling elite whose wealth is not defined by how much income they have in a year but by the accumulated ''wealth'' of ownership.

The plutocrats, those extremely wealthy whose power derives from their manipulation of their wealth rather than power derived from the votes of citizens. So sure, in the last two years since he has become a popular figure, his book has barely moved him into the 1% of ''income'' earners yet leaves him still way out in the cold as far as ''real wealth'' accumulation. Suggesting that he is now one of the 1% he has railed about only minimizes the real truth that our economy and our nation are run by a handful of families using their wealth for power rather than the will of our citizens.

And even the MSM and the'' libera''l press are pushing this notion as well, that Bernie is now one of the 1% and that makes him look foolish. Have you seen any of that going on? Even the nightly comics are making the same joke about it.

That is not the 1%... that is the .0000001%. That is literally like maybe 10,000 people.... the 3000 or so billionaires and people close to being billionaires.

You only need to make about $450k/yr to be considered part of the 1% income wise in America. Globally, only about $35k/yr makes you part of the 1%. Pretty much anyone in America working a full time job is part of the 1% globally.

a reply to: Edumakated

Thankyou Ed. that is exactly my point. Those who he rails against are the plutocrats, not people who earn a daily living though work or creation.
Side though, ''the 1%'' makes a much easier campaign slogan than saying ''the one one hundred thousandth''.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Edumakated

Thankyou Ed. that is exactly my point. Those who he rails against are the plutocrats, not people who earn a daily living though work or creation.
Side though, ''the 1%'' makes a much easier campaign slogan than saying ''the one one hundred thousandth''.

Agreed. It annoys me because they conflate 1% with the .0000001%. It is simply not accurate and misleading. I've been part of the 1% income wise for about the past 10 years. I am hardly what anyone would consider "rich". I am not popping bottles with Jay Z and flying private planes. Just a working stiff who has done ok. I have more in common with middle class than I do with any plutocrat...

I guess to the ignorant masses, saying 1% sounds catchier even though most don't realize you could literally be a school principal and a plumber and be part of the 1% in some cities.

Excellent thread. I did a video on Bernie's townhall and this idea of him railing against the rich while being one of the rich.



Almost every single prominent progressive is hypocritical on almost every single issue they say is important.

Climate change- demand the poor and middle class change their lifestyles overwhelmingly, up to and including getting rid of automobiles. Meanwhile, they have multiple homes and vehicles and fly on private jets leaving a far greater carbon footprint than the average person.

Illegal immigration- demand compassion and resources for illegal immigrants, and allowing them in the country and giving possible citizenship. Meanwhile they flip out if its suggested they be sent to sanctuary cities, and they live in wealthy gated communities that severely lack "diversity"

Wealth redistribution- find anyone who makes one dollar than them immoral and must force the government to redistribute their wealth, but what they make is absolutely fine.

And so on.

This shows me two things.

1. They are not more moral than anyone else. They seek only what is best for them.

2. This shows that if they obtain power, they would implement a two tier system where them and all of their wealthy progressive friends would not have to engage in the hardships they would make the rest of us engange in.

a reply to: Grambler

It's also part of his platform that people with luscious and luxurious beards will have to share those with the folliclely challenged.

a reply to: TheRedneck

and have no possible way to actually mount a noticeable campaign?

Evidently , neither did Sanders.
So , tell us you are going to run for President
Then feel free to write a satirical biography on why you failed
Join the 1% and Bernie
Thank me later.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Edumakated

Thankyou Ed. that is exactly my point. Those who he rails against are the plutocrats, not people who earn a daily living though work or creation.
Side though, ''the 1%'' makes a much easier campaign slogan than saying ''the one one hundred thousandth''.

No this is just a convenient excuse for people like Bernie to justify their wealth while calling out anyone with more than them.

What has Bernie created? Other than his book, he makes more money in a year just off of being a politician than almost everyone I know, and has done so almost the entirety of his adult life.

So why is Benrie and his lake houses and sports cars not a problem, but other people with big money are the problem?

The answer is simple; because he and others like him are hypocrites.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Grambler

It's also part of his platform that people with luscious and luxurious beards will have to share those with the folliclely challenged.

That's why I haven't been washing it.

I hope those who receive my beard hair enjoy mites.

a reply to: TheRedneck

F-Bernie, he is a money grubbing POS. He lost me at raising my taxes to pay for free stuff. If it's not free then quit saying it is.

a reply to: Grambler

This for Sanders is an embarrassment for sure. But once again Grambler, it is not the people with ''big money'' who he calls out against, it is the people with ''BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG MONEY'' and the power that it buys them that he is constantly pointing to.

No this is just a convenient excuse for people like Bernie to justify their wealth while calling out anyone with more than them.

You and other make this out to be simply a thing of jealousy where I do not see it that way at all. Sure, you may be right to some degree but do you not see that it is the plutocrats that he rails against, those few who rule by wealth? If he or any one would use the word plutocrat instead of ''the1%'' the media and other jokesters would make light that he was talking about fictitious aliens rather than the oligarchs that run this world.

Misconstruing the intent of his words, or from my point of view, miss-stating the real problem of control of society through wealth by-steps our focus on the real elites. Through laziness or expediency he allowed himself to accept the use of the sound byte term ''1%'' and it has come home to bite him in the ass.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: panoz77
a reply to: TheRedneck

Waiting for the liberal excuses to defend the un-defendable.

Waiting for the Republican mud slinging to begin. Oh, wait no longer!

Elaborate. I would love to hear you defend Bernie boy. Why isn't he paying HIS FAIR SHARE?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

The upcoming election should be about issues and not how much money someone has.

What's next? Elections based on genital size?

Well Trump does have HUGE BIGLY hands...soooo

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

First, Cher is not a Trump supporter even though that ''thread'' suggested in it's convoluted manner that she is.

Not to rehash that thread, but her tweet makes the exact same argument that Trump supporters make. She is saying the same thing we are. How does that not make her a Trump supporter?

But more to the point of Bernie, we both know that he rails against the 1%. But the one percent he rails against are not those who manage to have a windfall income such as he has with the sale of his books. Those he rails against are the ruling elite whose wealth is not defined by how much income they have in a year but by the accumulated ''wealth'' of ownership.

Business Insider reports that Bernie isn't exactly deprived when it comes to wealth of ownership:

Sanders reportedly owns three homes, including a four-bedroom house in Chittenden County, Vermont, that he bought with his wife, Jane, for $405,000 in 2009.

I doubt most people in this country own a single house valued at $400k... I know I don't, although I do have a nice, comfortable home now. Far too many people don't even own a home... they rent or lease, and often that rent/lease is on an apartment, not an actual house.

But I assume you are talking about those who own businesses. Let me ask you, which is better for the people? Someone who owns a business which employs people and thus gives those people some income to live on and a stepping stone to their American Dream, or someone who simply writes a book, employs no one else, and thus makes no contribution to anyone's American Dream but himself?

I mean, I get it. I really do. Someone people work for has more than they do. But what is the alternative? Take away ownership of business, and you take away jobs for everyone else. In that world, everyone would have to work for themselves, and the vast majority would be in poverty with no way to rise above it. Not everyone cal pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Sometimes, people need a hand up.

To be honest, I'm proud of Bernie for doing good financially. I'm glad he has three homes. Likely, one is his main residence, one is a vacation getaway, and the one in DC is for his job as Senator. There's nothing wrong with that. He wrote a best-seller and he deserves what he has gotten. Where I have a problem is when he refuses to apologize for becoming wealthy (his exact words) and yet turns around and in the same breath states how evil others are for doing the exact same thing he did. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy, and worse, it's class warfare. No country can prosper when the different classes are at odds with each other. Every country prospers when the different classes work together.

And when a country prospers,the people prosper.

We already have enough class warfare. The employees who call in sick because they want to go to a concert at the last minute or they want to play video games today are practicing class warfare. The employer who makes unreasonable demands on their workers is practicing class warfare. Neither of those help anyone. So why support more of something that doesn't benefit anyone? That is just a sure recipe for failure, and it has never failed to provide failure in the history of society.

I want everyone to prosper. Bernie wants only the unprosperous to prosper, so they can then be attacked and the cycle can start all over again. Do you support that?

TheRedneck

Bernie and the ilk like him and his supporters are like those Mega Church preachers like Joel Osteen, and the other one who was just called out for wearing a pair of 5k sneakers.

Do as I say not as I do. Bernie is a con man just like those mega church preachers and his supporters are nothing more than a flock to be fleeced.

a reply to: JOHNMARK012

The difference is that a church does not have the power of law to force someone to participate. The government has that power.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Lets use the word "plutocrat" then. How does Bernie not also fit that definition?

He is a career politician that has used his office receiving tax payer wages to get incredibly rich, and holds great power as one of the most influential politicians in America. Somehow he is ok with his own power and wealth, and its just the other people that are the problem.

Its not a matter of jealousy, its a matter of hypocrisy. He feel others in similar positions as him have too much power and wealth, and so he seeks power and wealth to ensure those people lose their power and wealth. This is the same exact pattern of socialism that has always existed.

And again, this hypocrisy extends to other positions he and many of his fellow socialists or progressive believe;

its ok for them to fly private jets but cars should be eliminated for the average person in ten years;

he can live in a gated community but regular people need more illegals in their communities;

Republicans are inciting violence if they criticize a democrat, but when one of his supporters takes his talking points about republicans killing people with their health care positions at face value and shoots them in a ball field he feels his language was justified and not incitement.

And so forth.

It is clear that the socialists are now making arbitrary distinctions for which wealthy need to be punished as immoral, and which wealthy are great people who deserve their money. And surprise surprise, I bet its the exact same rich people that agree with Bernies message that he will feel are the "good Rich".

a reply to: Lumenari

I think they also asked him if the money he made off his book was made through capitalism, and he actually answered no.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

I think they also asked him if the money he made off his book was made through capitalism, and he actually answered no.

If he truly said that then he is truly more delusional and stupid than I thought... the man clearly doesn't understand economics.

No publisher is going to pay some old geezer several hundred thousand dollars just because the like what he has to say... he is published because the publisher can sell a ton of books even though he may be writing about the ills of capitalism. Ironic, no? Capitalism at it's finest. Make money off a socialist/communist railing against capitalism! Only in America!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

The upcoming election should be about issues and not how much money someone has.

What's next? Elections based on genital size?

For the DNC, it's all about who hates Trump more. They all sound like 5th graders competing against each other.

a reply to: Edumakated

Here it is ....

Baier asks him if it wasn't the definition of capitalism and the American Dream when he was able to write the book and make that money. He stands up and says no. Then he goes into a shpleel about how he had a college education and was a Senator, and that made it unfair because not everyone else is and everyone should have clean water and health care and stuff.