Socialist Bernie admits he's super-rich. "I wrote a best-selling book"

[Legion]

Google. If you don't believe me then present your own estimate.

Estimates aren't data.

I know trolls don't like hearing this, but if you make the claim, it's up to you to prove it.

[Legion]

A million isn't what it used to be as many lottery winners will be happy to tell you. It takes at least 10 million to start being truly rich. The top 1% earn 1.5 million per year on average. Thats what it takes to be rich.

Is that a fact?

[distraff]

Estimates aren't data.

You are claiming he is rich. Present your data.

[distraff]

Is that a fact?

Its called inflation. Its why you can't buy things with a nickel anymore. Check it out.

[Legion]

You are claiming he is rich. Present your data.

When did I state that Bernie is "rich"

Cite your evidence.

[Legion]

Its called inflation. Its why you can't buy things with a nickel anymore. Check it out.

Not an argument.

This was your statement:

A million isn't what it used to be as many lottery winners will be happy to tell you. It takes at least 10 million to start being truly rich. The top 1% earn 1.5 million per year on average. Thats what it takes to be rich.

Who told you that "It takes at least 10 million to start being truly rich?"

Who told you that "he top 1% earn 1.5 million per year on average?"

Who decided "thats (sic) what it takes to be rich?"

[Nordberg]

Bernis made a million this year because of his successful book. In the future, his income will reflect waning sales. His income will diminish year after year.

[Oneuli]

I suspect the money came from accepting bribes but whatever, there is no way a socialist can rationalize being a millionaire. He can live very well off his salary as senator and should have given the book proceeds to the poor.

A socialist can, of course, be a millionaire without that being hypocrisy. Socialism is about what you think the best rules for governing our economy should be, not about what you think individuals should voluntarily be doing. In fact, it's possible for a rational socialist to see individual charity as counter-productive, in that it reduces the political pressure for the systemic changes that are needed, and thereby delays those needed changes.

It may be easier for you to see your error if you ask yourself whether it would be hypocritical for a capitalist to donate money to charity. Obviously, no. Capitalism is, again, about what you think the best rules for governing our economy should be, not about what you think individuals should voluntarily be doing. In fact, it's possible for a rational capitalist to see individual charity as productive, in that it reduces political pressure that might otherwise result in revolutionary systemic changes that he believes are not needed -- throw the plebes enough table scraps and they won't demand a seat at the banquet table. It's the same way industries often choose to self-regulate, in hopes of preventing the government from coming in and imposing regulations.

[CFM]

I am not.

Even you realize you're a failure.

[CFM]

How many illegals could be put in those empty houses?

People like Bernie don't care about the well being of illegals. All he wants is their votes and to use them as numbers when it comes to apportionment for the House of Representatives.