It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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''.
and have no possible way to actually mount a noticeable campaign?
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''.
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.
No this is just a convenient excuse for people like Bernie to justify their wealth while calling out anyone with more than them.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?