• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Spends $575K on Vacation Home - Can Socialists Do That?

the reason it is causing debate is he owns three homes.

he went on record scolding consumerism in this country. Global warming suffers when too many people consume too many products.

hey, that is true. so the solution is to allow Bernie to occupy three homes.

he proved to be a hypocrite of the Al Gore variety.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Which has absolutely zero to do with buying a house which is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

The point is, he sold himself as one of the common people, a populist of sorts. His faux socialistic dogma was apparently founded on the principle of wealth redistribution. He railed against those of wealth and privilege, blaming a corrupt system for keeping millions of Americans financially suppressed. And then he purchases a $600,000 vacation home. This is comparable to a TV evangelist who preaches the humility of Christ while living in the lap of luxury.

It just looks a bit disingenuous.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking the average working-class American probably doesn't own a $600,000 vacation home.
 
JasperL said:
What part of his rhetoric was demonstrated to be hypocritical by him buying a vacation home from the proceeds of selling another vacation home? I'm not aware he ever claimed to be poor or to give all his monies to the poors and underprivileged.
Click to expand...

Which is weird since he is part of that wealth inequality problem. You would think he would fight to make himself on par with the average man to not be party to that nasty wealth inequality, but apparently he thinks buying three homes is more worth his efforts.
 
JasperL said:
What part of his rhetoric was demonstrated to be hypocritical by him buying a vacation home from the proceeds of selling another vacation home? I'm not aware he ever claimed to be poor or to give all his monies to the poors and underprivileged.
Click to expand...
You can read my response to Tanngrisnir. It's applicable to your question as well.
 
FluffyNinja said:
The point is, he sold himself as one of the common people, a populist of sorts.
Click to expand...

Yes, and?
His faux socialistic dogma was apparently founded on the principle of wealth redistribution.
Click to expand...

No, that was part of it, and it wasn't 'faux' anything: it was simply his take on what the policies of Social Democrats could bring about.
He railed against those of wealth and privilege, blaming a corrupt system for keeping millions of Americans financially suppressed. And then he purchases a $600,000 vacation home. This is comparable to a TV evangelist who preaches the humility of Christ while living in the lap of luxury.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't, since he did this through money from an inheritance and it's not even remotely on the same scale as the TV evangelists.
It just looks a bit disingenuous.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking the average working-class American probably doesn't own a $600,000 vacation home.
Click to expand...

This is true, but nothing in his rhetoric or statements says that people with the means to do so shouldn't do so.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yes, and?

No, that was part of it, and it wasn't 'faux' anything: it was simply his take on what the policies of Social Democrats could bring about.

No, it doesn't, since he did this through money from an inheritance and it's not even remotely on the same scale as the TV evangelists.

This is true, but nothing in his rhetoric or statements says that people with the means to do so shouldn't do so.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if it seems I'm trying to burst your idealistic Bernie Bubble; but he's as hypocritical as the next politician. Owning three homes? Really?

He's shown that he's nothing more than part of the problem that he's identified to his followers. Back in the olden days we'd call that disingenuous.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I'm sorry if it seems I'm trying to burst your idealistic Bernie Bubble; but he's as hypocritical as the next politician. Owning three homes? Really?
Click to expand...

You're not. I'm not a Bernie supporter. I just know his rhetoric and policies and how what you're claiming doesn't square with them.

He's shown that he's nothing more than part of the problem that he's identified to his followers. Back in the olden days we'd call that disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

Eh. I simply don't see it that way. He's not part of the class, the 1%, that he so often railed against.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, it doesn't, since he did this through money from an inheritance and it's not even remotely on the same scale as the TV evangelists.
Click to expand...

Inheritance? Since when did socialists start supporting that? He should have donated all that money.
 
Henrin said:
Inheritance? Since when did socialists start supporting that? He should have donated all that money.
Click to expand...

Since when has Sanders ever advocated getting rid of inheritance completely?

Yet again you prove you have no clue what you're babbling about.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Since when has Sanders ever advocated getting rid of inheritance completely?

Yet again you prove you have no clue what you're babbling about.
Click to expand...

Inheritance creates inheritance babies and magnifies wealth disparity by assisting in growing wealth over generations. Socialists are opposed to it.
 
FluffyNinja said:
I'm sorry if it seems I'm trying to burst your idealistic Bernie Bubble; but he's as hypocritical as the next politician. Owning three homes? Really?

He's shown that he's nothing more than part of the problem that he's identified to his followers. Back in the olden days we'd call that disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I call it being a socialist leader. Cause, well, they're always hypocritical dumbasses.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! I hope it's comfy in your safe space.

Sorry that you embarrassed yourself so badly.
Click to expand...

Salon is a biased and ****ty source. Why would I read it?
 
Henrin said:
Salon is a biased and ****ty source. Why would I read it?
Click to expand...

You couldn't. It uses words that are too big for you and clearly frighten you, and what I linked to is a rational analysis of Sander's various political positions.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You couldn't. It uses words that are too big for you and clearly frighten you, and what I linked to is a rational analysis of Sander's various political positions.
Click to expand...

You linked to a liberal rag that I have no reason to pay any mind.
 
FluffyNinja said:
The point is, he sold himself as one of the common people, a populist of sorts. His faux socialistic dogma was apparently founded on the principle of wealth redistribution. He railed against those of wealth and privilege, blaming a corrupt system for keeping millions of Americans financially suppressed. And then he purchases a $600,000 vacation home. This is comparable to a TV evangelist who preaches the humility of Christ while living in the lap of luxury.
Click to expand...

Unless Bernie got his money fleecing his flock to live in luxury, it's not remotely comparable.

It just looks a bit disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Only if you deliberately misstate what it means to be a democratic socialist, which does not come with a vow of poverty.

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking the average working-class American probably doesn't own a $600,000 vacation home.
Click to expand...

True! But irrelevant!
 
Henrin said:
Inheritance? Since when did socialists start supporting that? He should have donated all that money.
Click to expand...

I think you mean democratic socialist, which is different than a 'socialist,' and the actual Bernie Sanders and not your made up caricature of what he represents proposed an ACTUAL estate tax proposal that exempts $3.5 million per person, $7 million per couple.
 
JasperL said:
Unless Bernie got his money fleecing his flock to live in luxury, it's not remotely comparable.



Only if you deliberately misstate what it means to be a democratic socialist, which does not come with a vow of poverty.



True! But irrelevant!
Click to expand...

This is obviously just a difference of opinion. You apparently choose to see his motivations as sincere and his democratic socialist rallying cry to be genuine. I see him as a politician pandering for votes telling a particular demographic what they want to hear. I don't see Bernie attempting to live out his own doctrines, nor do I see that his voting record as a member of Congress always reflected it. My only point was that it seems hypocritical and disingenuous to me. My opinion....I'm not trying to "prove" or "disprove" anything.
 
JasperL said:
I think you mean democratic socialist, which is different than a 'socialist,' and the actual Bernie Sanders and not your made up caricature of what he represents proposed an ACTUAL estate tax proposal that exempts $3.5 million per person, $7 million per couple.
Click to expand...

Incidentally...just words. Semantics. Meaningless. You champion the word "democratic socialist" like it hasn't had negative undertones in the past. The Party that ran East Germany after WWII called itself the Party of Democratic Socialism. The former USSR and the Chinese governments call themselves "republics." Was there anything democratic about East Germany? Would you consider China to be a true republic?

I don't put a great deal of stock in idealistic titles......that is food of the Sheeple.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Incidentally...just words. Semantics. Meaningless. You champion the word "democratic socialist" like it hasn't had negative undertones in the past. The Party that ran East Germany after WWII called itself the Party of Democratic Socialism. The former USSR and the Chinese governments call themselves "republics." Was there anything democratic about East Germany? Would you consider China to be a true republic?

I don't put a great deal of stock in idealistic titles......that is food of the Sheeple.
Click to expand...

OK, I actually agree with you. So instead of relying on labels, you should favor holding someone accountable for policies he's actually supported, and not policies you have made up and assume he's in favor of because of how he describes himself or herself.

So quote Bernie in his own words being hypocritical!
 
FluffyNinja said:
This is obviously just a difference of opinion. You apparently choose to see his motivations as sincere and his democratic socialist rallying cry to be genuine. I see him as a politician pandering for votes telling a particular demographic what they want to hear. I don't see Bernie attempting to live out his own doctrines, nor do I see that his voting record as a member of Congress always reflected it. My only point was that it seems hypocritical and disingenuous to me. My opinion....I'm not trying to "prove" or "disprove" anything.
Click to expand...

It's not a big deal, but you made disparaging remarks about the guy and all I'm asking for you to do is support them with some kind of reasoned argument. You say he's not living out his own doctrines. Well what specific doctrine actually advocated by Bernie is he failing to live by?
 
If they work for it, sure, why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom