socialism

[Pain Applicant1]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

we were talking about senators, not congressmen, as the reps typically have less money. he is also old. you accumulate wealth as you age, so that is a variable that needs to be controlled for. mind-numbingly stupid to call him a hypocrite

No, it's not, but it's pretty stupid to ignore his hypocrisy. You're obviously purposely ignoring it to stay loyal to your party.

I already mentioned I like having the guy around, but I'm truly baffled how you cannot see the points I'm making.

I want to try and figure this out. Kindly respond directly to each issue so we can try to figure out where our disconnect is.

#1. He is for economic equality but he is far richer than the average American of any age and does not practice economic equality so there is hypocrisy #1.
#2. He rails against the housing market, home affordability, and the lack of availability, but at the same time owns three homes. This contributes to affordability and the lack of availability, so there is hypocrisy #2.
#3. He wants the wealthy to pay their fair share to support people who have less, but he's such a miser with his own givings, so there's hypocrisy #3.

Address each one directly so I can understand your position. I'm sincerely trying to understand you better.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

2.5 million is a lot for someone who has 6 books that have generated significant income?

you did not disavow the fact that he took mortgages out on 2 of his homes.

but thank you for posting about his paying off his homes. i did not see that in my searches. he used his book sales to pay up those mortgages.

and he paid for his 3rd house all on advance book money for a book. not exactly something that supports your contention of hypocricy


but then again, that means those funds are not available for use in stock market to take advantage of insider information and more on the straight and narrow unlike his compatriots.

his wealth of 2.5 million is still significantly less than any of his compatriots and it does not disavow his talking points.

you say he doesnt donate to charity. you cherry pick and say "he chose that book because it did poorly!" did you not know he chose to donate before the book came out? Feb 2011. "The Speech" was published March 1st, 2011.

he has also made other charitable donations that are listed in this article.

FACT CHECK: Has Bernie Sanders Never Donated A ‘Single Dime’ To Charity?

'FACT'

checkyourfact.com

FACT CHECK: Has Bernie Sanders Never Donated A ‘Single Dime’ To Charity?

'FACT'

checkyourfact.com

so where is his hypocrisy?

he has made money. much of it is through book sales, yet he would have become a millionaire based on safe simple 501 investments on a congressman's salary. he bought a house on advanced money. he is not using the office to garner greater wealth through stock market investments or insider information. at least from 2014-2017 he donated thousands to charity as is consistent with his salary. and it is hard to donate when most of his wealth is tied up in real estate.


wheres the hypocrisy?

See my post above to ssdoc.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the mortgages. Real estate makes up a good chunk of his net worth, as it does mine. So what? Having a mortgage at one time or another is irrelevant. I had mortgages at one time on most of my properties.

You just told me the median pol's net worth is $1. He's well above that. How would he be less than most pols if he's well above the median, which is the halfway point?

I'm not making any of the claims that you're bringing up. I think you're trying to pull a strawman.

I didn't say anything about not donating to charity, just that it's a paltry amount. Most of his net worth may be tied up in real estate but he definitely has a cash savings, at least a million. He can easily give more than a few thousand dollars. He released his tax records a few years ago.
I didn't say anything about the stock market or insider trading.

The points I'm making are noted in my post above to ssdoc. Address them directly and don't add the strawman.

 

[Ducttape]

No, it's not, but it's pretty stupid to ignore his hypocrisy. You're obviously purposely ignoring it to stay loyal to your party.

I already mentioned I like having the guy around, but I'm truly baffled how you cannot see the points I'm making.

I want to try and figure this out. Kindly respond directly to each issue so we can try to figure out where our disconnect is.

#1. He is for economic equality but he is far richer than the average American of any age and does not practice economic equality so there is hypocrisy #1.
#2. He rails against the housing market, home affordability, and the lack of availability, but at the same time owns three homes. This contributes to affordability and the lack of availability, so there is hypocrisy #2.
#3. He wants the wealthy to pay their fair share to support people who have less, but he's such a miser with his own givings, so there's hypocrisy #3.

Address each one directly so I can understand your position. I'm sincerely trying to understand you better.

so what hypocrisy?

he doesnt live like a millionaire. he has stock holdings that are commensurate with what would be generated from everyman type 501k.

you expect him to have only a net worth of 977k? that apparently is the average net worth for 84-year-old americans. guess what, without those book sales, he would have the average 84-year-old's net worth.


in addition, when we are talking economic inequality, we are not talking the difference between a couple of million. we are talking about the ultra rich who have over $30 million net worth, and he has 1/10th that amount.


in the years reported, he has given >$1000, where the average american gives roughly $813, according to google. and he is part of the 6 out of 10 households that gives, not the 4 out of 10 that does not.


he does pay his fair share. he is not using tax deductions or write offs to decrease his income tax rate.

Charitable Giving Statistics for 2023

Explore the most popular charitable giving statistics (2023 updated!). From the average American to corporations, churches, and schools.

www.definefinancial.com

now to be specific, he paid off the vermont house. in may 2025 he has $350k left to pay on the Washington DC house. and his Lake Champlaign vacation home was paid off with the sales of his wife's family's property, not from his salary or book sales.

he is in the top 3% of seniors but not in the top 0.5%, which is always the group of ultra rich we are talking about.


he is fully capable of discussing economic inequality even though you and right wing media are being disingenuous about his "wealth" because he is no where near one of the ultra rich.



and btw, your entire point is an ad hominem logical fallacy. attack bernie sanders by calling him a hypocrite, not his ideas.

 

[Ducttape]

See my post above to ssdoc.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the mortgages. Real estate makes up a good chunk of his net worth, as it does mine. So what? Having a mortgage at one time or another is irrelevant. I had mortgages at one time on most of my properties.

You just told me the median pol's net worth is $1. He's well above that. How would he be less than most pols if he's well above the median, which is the halfway point?

I'm not making any of the claims that you're bringing up. I think you're trying to pull a strawman.

I didn't say anything about not donating to charity, just that it's a paltry amount. Most of his net worth may be tied up in real estate but he definitely has a cash savings, at least a million. He can easily give more than a few thousand dollars. He released his tax records a few years ago.
I didn't say anything about the stock market or insider trading.

The points I'm making are noted in my post above to ssdoc. Address them directly and don't add the strawman.

just to clarify, in the years that are available, his tax rate were between 35% and 30%. as expected with standard deduction.

the median pol includes congressmen. he ranks between 67th and 80th in US Senators. and way below median for Senators.

a significant portion of his "net worth" is tied up in his real estate. probably at least 60%. the point is that that is not readily available money to use for donations.

the money he has is apparently in mutual funds, 501s and pensions.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

so what hypocrisy?

he doesnt live like a millionaire. he has stock holdings that are commensurate with what would be generated from everyman type 501k.

you expect him to have only a net worth of 977k? that apparently is the average net worth for 84-year-old americans. guess what, without those book sales, he would have the average 84-year-old's net worth.


in addition, when we are talking economic inequality, we are not talking the difference between a couple of million. we are talking about the ultra rich who have over $30 million net worth, and he has 1/10th that amount.


in the years reported, he has given >$1000, where the average american gives roughly $813, according to google. and he is part of the 6 out of 10 households that gives, not the 4 out of 10 that does not.


he does pay his fair share. he is not using tax deductions or write offs to decrease his income tax rate.

Charitable Giving Statistics for 2023

Explore the most popular charitable giving statistics (2023 updated!). From the average American to corporations, churches, and schools.

www.definefinancial.com

now to be specific, he paid off the vermont house. in may 2025 he has $350k left to pay on the Washington DC house. and his Lake Champlaign vacation home was paid off with the sales of his wife's family's property, not from his salary or book sales.

he is in the top 3% of seniors but not in the top 0.5%, which is always the group of ultra rich we are talking about.


he is fully capable of discussing economic inequality even though you and right wing media are being disingenuous about his "wealth" because he is no where near one of the ultra rich.



and btw, your entire point is an ad hominem logical fallacy. attack bernie sanders by calling him a hypocrite, not his ideas.

Ugh, it's so difficult to discuss anything with you sometimes. I feel like hitting my head on a brick wall. I'm obviously attacking him for being a hypocrite, not his ideas. I told you twice that I like that he's around so he can bring up the points he's making. I think whether or not a billionaire should exist is a very valid question, that the discrepancy in wealth is not good for a stable society, etc. I like his points and they should be discussed. But people get more respect when they lead by example, which is a rarity these days.

Get better at doing your homework. Read the Forbes article. It contradicts what you're saying because it says he paid for his vacation home in cash.
Don't agree with Forbes, how about reading the article that YOU posted? You're making a fool of yourself, yet again, for not reading what you yourself posted.

Apparently, he sold the DC home years ago so not sure how he has $350k left on his mortgage.

"Senator Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, currently own two homes and previously owned a third"
"Former Property – Sanders also owned a one-bedroom townhouse in Washington, D.C., located just blocks from the US Capitol. He purchased the property in 2007 and sold it in April 2021 for $422,000, Zillow reported"

---

He may pay more than what the avg American pays but he has more so percentage is what's important. Besides, most Americans aren't going around complaining like he is. I don't care if he doesn't give any charitable donations, but then he should keep his mouth shut about giving more.

Sorry dude but being in the top 3% of society is a very elite place to be, no equality up that high.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

just to clarify, in the years that are available, his tax rate were between 35% and 30%. as expected with standard deduction.

the median pol includes congressmen. he ranks between 67th and 80th in US Senators. and way below median for Senators.

a significant portion of his "net worth" is tied up in his real estate. probably at least 60%. the point is that that is not readily available money to use for donations.

the money he has is apparently in mutual funds, 501s and pensions.

List the median net worth once again and then list his net worth. Do you know what median means?

Right, it's tied up in mutual funds because he wants to make money like the rest of us. He's a greedy capitalist like everyone else. No one is forcing him to keep in mutual funds. Sell them and redistribute your wealth just like you want others to do. Lead by example. If not, hypocrisy abounds. Sorry, dude, I never respected a leader who says do as I say and not as I do, and I'm not going to start now. Poor, poor leadership.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

still not the point I'm making. Either way, I'm going to have to bust you on that one, I think.

The bulk of a politician's net worth typically comes from what they did before (and after) entering office, not during.

Also, what's the average net worth for the average US senator? Maybe a million? Sanders is still worth 3x as much. Not good, not even egalitarian with his own peers. Not looking very consistent for lil' ol' Sandy boy.

I want to push back on this a little bit, there are quite a few members of Congress whose weath has skyrocketed after getting elected. Big story recently about the huge increase in net worth MTG had as a result of some interesting stocks she bought that days later had massive gains due to government policy.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

I want to push back on this a little bit, there are quite a few members of Congress whose weath has skyrocketed after getting elected. Big story recently about the huge increase in net worth MTG had as a result of some interesting stocks she bought that days later had massive gains due to government policy.

I'm sure, but in general that's not the case. You can always find outliers.

Either way, not really relevant to the point I'm making. In fact, where he stands in relation to his colleagues is not really relevant at all to the point I'm making.

I'm taking his words, vision, and ideology and seating it next to his reality. Then, I'm placing this comfortably in a pretty little basket and comparing it to the reality of the average American, whose basket is not as pretty.

 

[SSdoc33]

No, it's not, but it's pretty stupid to ignore his hypocrisy. You're obviously purposely ignoring it to stay loyal to your party.

I already mentioned I like having the guy around, but I'm truly baffled how you cannot see the points I'm making.

I want to try and figure this out. Kindly respond directly to each issue so we can try to figure out where our disconnect is.

#1. He is for economic equality but he is far richer than the average American of any age and does not practice economic equality so there is hypocrisy #1.
#2. He rails against the housing market, home affordability, and the lack of availability, but at the same time owns three homes. This contributes to affordability and the lack of availability, so there is hypocrisy #2.
#3. He wants the wealthy to pay their fair share to support people who have less, but he's such a miser with his own givings, so there's hypocrisy #3.

Address each one directly so I can understand your position. I'm sincerely trying to understand you better.

dont fall into the hyperalgresia straw-man trap.

if you start with an erroneous assumption (lie) then your whole argument is meaningless.

1. his is not for economic equality. he is for reducing economic inequality (billionaires, decreased middle class, etc). there is a huge and distinct difference.
2. he is indeed for more affordable housing. he has a house in DC, where he works, and a house in vermont, where he lives. this is the standard model for a senator. also, this is his "vacation house". hardly the ritz. i dont see how this counteracts his message

3. any quick search of his charitable donations reveals you are wrong about this as well.

the guy stays pretty ture to his principles. and lets remind you: most people are sitting in a nursing home picking their but at 84, but he is out there battling mouth breathers from fly over country. have to respect his energy

 

[MitchLevi]

it is a US problem.

and it is clearly a problem that infects all of the US, not just large cities.


are you trying to say that white males do not kill other people with guns?

that statement is laughable.

not to change the subject like others on this thread, but the rate of white male gun violence far exceeds that of any other industrialized first world country.


fwiw, if you look at FBI database from 2019 - and this is not a complete listing, only the ones the FBI investigated - you still see that 39% of homicides were committed by whites.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/2019/tables/pdfs/offenders_race_by_offense_category_2019.pdf

3432 of homicides out of a total of 8739.

Disproportionality sir. Clearly, that is the point. Black males are what, 6-7% of the total population?

We need to fix this as a society. Zero tolerance.

This is an absurd conversation Duct.

Your link is dumb and pointless and everyone knows the reality of this situation.

 

[MitchLevi]

a lot to respond to.

first, again, attacking the poster, not the point with your comments regarding living in a gun zone. i work in a gun zone (where the hospital is located). my patients live here. i dont live here but i frequent services in the area. about 4 of my (now former) patients have been unalived by guns. but again not pertinent to the discussion.

second, you make the claim, then you list the mayors that are requesting police stay at street corners 24/7. definitely not the mayor of chicago, or NY, or LA, or Boston.

third, pivot much?
just because you dont like the definition of large city vs small city is a you problem.

take your time to look at this article, which does break it down more to your liking, yet still shows that rural gun violence is a significant or more so than urban.

Gun Violence in Rural America

While politicians and the media have largely focused their attention on gun violence in large cities, rural communities continue to see a rise in gun-related deaths.

www.americanprogress.org

in that article, it does list the most violent counties/cities. there are 3 large cities - St. Louis, Baltimore, and Orleans Parish - but the rest are not population hubs and only 1 of the others has a population over 100,000.

Such a waste of freaking time discussing this with you because you're completely full of it...

Black males do the majority of the killing in the country, and they do it in cities.

Not on a hillside on someone's farm...(unless you're in South Africa).

 

[Pain Applicant1]

dont fall into the hyperalgresia straw-man trap.

if you start with an erroneous assumption (lie) then your whole argument is meaningless.

1. his is not for economic equality. he is for reducing economic inequality (billionaires, decreased middle class, etc). there is a huge and distinct difference.
2. he is indeed for more affordable housing. he has a house in DC, where he works, and a house in vermont, where he lives. this is the standard model for a senator. also, this is his "vacation house". hardly the ritz. i dont see how this counteracts his message
View attachment 409029

3. any quick search of his charitable donations reveals you are wrong about this as well.

the guy stays pretty ture to his principles. and lets remind you: most people are sitting in a nursing home picking their but at 84, but he is out there battling mouth breathers from fly over country. have to respect his energy

1. Again, he needs to reduce his own economic inequality first. There's a reason that so many idioms exist addressing this. You know:

• clean your own backyard
• bricks and glass houses
• pot kettle black
• charity begins at home
• practice preach
• etc

You can compare him to someone worth $30 mil and say he's only worth 1/10 of that person. However, considering that the median net worth according to nerd wallet of 75+ yo Americans is about $300,000 it works out to about the same, as that demographic is 1/10 the worth of him. The exact same criticism he hurls at those above him can be hurled right back at him by those below him.

$3 million may not seem like a lot to you because you're also likely a multimillionaire, but to the vast majority of Americans, it's a tremendous amount. Remember, we're looking at the median and not the mean.

Bottom line: he needs to reduce his own economic inequality before being critical of others. In typical liberal fashion, it's always someone else who needs to take on the responsibility and sacrifice, and not oneself. Bernie just happens to be at the sweet spot, right? Only those above him have too much, but not him. Funny how that works out.

2. The average American owns 0.6 homes. Whether Bern owns 2 or 3 homes, he owns more than 3.3 to 5 times as many homes as the average American. For those Americans who do own homes, maybe only 4 or 5% own a second home. There is no way any rational human being can look at this as being anywhere close to the egalitarianism that he preaches. Only someone with an agenda can't see this.

Remember, we're not comparing him to other senators as you mentioned; we're comparing to the average American. Most senators don't spew the hypocrisy that he does, so they don't need to be criticized for it or held to the same standard. There are other hypocrisies we can go after them for.

3. Quick search his charitable donations and link it so you can show me where I'm wrong. I'd love to read it. Once you're done with that, I'll post the tax records that he himself released. I give more than he does, and I don't preach anywhere close to the degree that he does.

 

[clubdeac]

im not talking about the average politican. im talking about bernie.

average net worth of senators is not easily searchable but it looks like it is comfortably north of 5 mil. and his "peers" are not 84 and have nbene doing this for 40 years.

your take is very strange

Bernie is the perfect example of why we need term limits

 

[clubdeac]

Can you guys imagine if the races were reversed. Cities would be burned to the ground

“In case you've forgotten, Daniel Penny is the guy who came to the aid of a young woman on a NYC subway and was subsequently charged with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide but was acquitted by a jury in December 2024. No one came to the aid of the young Ukrainian woman when she was attacked.

“In times of crisis, it’s common to see Florida’s law enforcement officers reminding potential criminals that Floridians are armed and authorized to protect themselves, each other, and their property. In Blue cities, on the other hand, people who protect themselves or others can be certain that they will be prosecuted should they decide to help others. Criminals with long rap sheets get released back into the public with metronomic regularity, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙛 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙪𝙥 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙩𝙝𝙪𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙣𝙨, 𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙪𝙥 𝙞𝙣 𝙖 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨.”

The Daniel Penny Effect Is Destroying Blue Cities

The Daniel Penny effect highlights the dangers of self-defense in blue cities.

hotair.com

 

[Ducttape]

Bernie Sanders Net Worth: Complete Financial Analysis (2025)

Discover Bernie Sanders' net worth with our comprehensive breakdown of his income sources, assets, and financial disclosures. Compare his wealth to other politicians and average Americans.

www.southwestjournal.com

List the median net worth once again and then list his net worth. Do you know what median means?

Right, it's tied up in mutual funds because he wants to make money like the rest of us. He's a greedy capitalist like everyone else. No one is forcing him to keep in mutual funds. Sell them and redistribute your wealth just like you want others to do. Lead by example. If not, hypocrisy abounds. Sorry, dude, I never respected a leader who says do as I say and not as I do, and I'm not going to start now. Poor, poor leadership.

again, you are making logical fallacies by attacking the presenter - Sanders - rather than address his concerns. This tactic is commonly used to denigrate the other party or to obfuscate so that there is no real discussion on the true issues.

"Leading by example" is not only a diversion but a stupid argument btw. It means you have no basis for your argument by telling someone to purposefully sabotage himself. then the argument will be "well, he isn't like anyone else so how can he know how anyone else is doing?"

He has always paid his share of taxes yet you say he should do something you would never tell any other American to do. He has not advocated for reducing taxes for his tax group and instead has advocated for increasing taxes for his own tax bracket. Where is the hypocrisy?

And fwiw he has always called himself a democratic socialist, not a true socialist. A Democrat socialist believes in capitalism with controls but you insist he be a true socialist. Why?

The million is for congressmen. I have posted 2 separate articles that state that he is in the bottom in terms of senators in particular 77-80th in wealth. Again, why do you hold him to standards not befitting his role as a US senator?

But most importantly, talk about his message, don't use the logical fallacies of attacking him personally.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Bernie Sanders Net Worth: Complete Financial Analysis (2025)

Discover Bernie Sanders' net worth with our comprehensive breakdown of his income sources, assets, and financial disclosures. Compare his wealth to other politicians and average Americans.

www.southwestjournal.com

again, you are making logical fallacies by attacking the presenter - Sanders - rather than address his concerns. This tactic is commonly used to denigrate the other party or to obfuscate so that there is no real discussion on the true issues.

"Leading by example" is not only a diversion but a stupid argument btw. It means you have no basis for your argument by telling someone to purposefully sabotage himself. then the argument will be "well, he isn't like anyone else so how can he know how anyone else is doing?"

He has always paid his share of taxes yet you say he should do something you would never tell any other American to do. He has not advocated for reducing taxes for his tax group and instead has advocated for increasing taxes for his own tax bracket. Where is the hypocrisy?

And fwiw he has always called himself a democratic socialist, not a true socialist. A Democrat socialist believes in capitalism with controls but you insist he be a true socialist. Why?

The million is for congressmen. I have posted 2 separate articles that state that he is in the bottom in terms of senators in particular 77-80th in wealth. Again, why do you hold him to standards not befitting his role as a US senator?

But most importantly, talk about his message, don't use the logical fallacies of attacking him personally.

I'll repeat myself for the last time.

-I'm not discussing his issues. I'm discussing him.
-I'm not discussing his taxes. I'm referring to his charitable donations
-I'm comparing him to the average American, not a fellow congressman, as that is less important. I used what you posted regarding where he stands with senators. Bad move on my part to reference anything you write or link to, as you obviously don't read anything you reference. You have proved this time and time again.
-I'm holding him to different standards because of what he preaches about. If another pol bashes transgenderism, he would be ridiculed if it were found out that he was in fact transgender. Other pols wouldn't be ridiculed because either they're not transgender or they're not criticizing it.

the median net worth for a US senator is $1 million.

his wealth of 2.5 million

I can't with you anymore. Either you're not reading anything I've been writing, or your dementia is worsening. If you're going to ask me the same questions over and over again, I'll refer you to the numerous times I've already responded to them in the posts above.

 

[bubaghanush]

I'll repeat myself for the last time.

-I'm not discussing his issues. I'm discussing him.
-I'm not discussing his taxes. I'm referring to his charitable donations
-I'm comparing him to the average American, not a fellow congressman, as that is less important. I used what you posted regarding where he stands with senators. Bad move on my part to reference anything you write or link to, as you obviously don't read anything you reference. You have proved this time and time again.
-I'm holding him to different standards because of what he preaches about. If another pol bashes transgenderism, he would be ridiculed if it were found out that he was in fact transgender. Other pols wouldn't be ridiculed because either they're not transgender or they're not criticizing it.





I can't with you anymore. Either you're not reading anything I've been writing, or your dementia is worsening. If you're going to ask me the same questions over and over again, I'll refer you to the numerous times I've already responded to them in the posts above.

You guys really like personal attacks when the argument doesn't go your way.

As was pointed out a true socialist is very different than a Democratic socialist.

Can you point out exactly what specific policy he advocates that he is being hypocritical about?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

You guys really like personal attacks when the argument doesn't go your way.

As was pointed out a true socialist is very different than a Democratic socialist.

Can you point out exactly what specific policy he advocates that he is being hypocritical about?

Just read any of my posts above and it'll explain everything to you. I've given clear examples several times. Sorry, I'm too angry and upset about Charlie Kirk to continue this right now.

 

[Ducttape]

I'll repeat myself for the last time.

-I'm not discussing his issues. I'm discussing him.
-I'm not discussing his taxes. I'm referring to his charitable donations
-I'm comparing him to the average American, not a fellow congressman, as that is less important. I used what you posted regarding where he stands with senators. Bad move on my part to reference anything you write or link to, as you obviously don't read anything you reference. You have proved this time and time again.
-I'm holding him to different standards because of what he preaches about. If another pol bashes transgenderism, he would be ridiculed if it were found out that he was in fact transgender. Other pols wouldn't be ridiculed because either they're not transgender or they're not criticizing it.





I can't with you anymore. Either you're not reading anything I've been writing, or your dementia is worsening. If you're going to ask me the same questions over and over again, I'll refer you to the numerous times I've already responded to them in the posts above.

fwiw, it is from the Forbes article that you posted that states that he still has a mortgage on one of the houses.

Sanders owns a row house a short walk from the Capitol, which he bought in 2007 for $489,000. Forbes estimates he still has around $350,000 left on the mortgage there.

and this:

Even after the big purchases, the couple has around $500,000 in cash and investments, including three retirement accounts owned by Jane Sanders. They might have even more cash on hand. If Sanders has been contributing a portion of his paycheck to the Thrift Savings Plan—essentially a 401(k) program for government workers—he could be sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional wealth. But the government doesn’t require politicians to disclose such holdings.

so you are insistent on ad hominem attacks.

only interested in scapegoating him.

even though he pays the right amount of taxes for his tax bracket.

even though he donates amounts similar to other people in his tax bracket.

even though he has not taken advantage of the perks of his office.

even though the proceeds of his book sales are the sole reason he has over 1.2 million dollars, an amount that, if he did not get, would have put him right at where 50% of senior citizens possess.

he is doing what the system requires him to do, and when the laws change, he will continue to follow them.

but YOU - YOU hold him to standards you made up based on what you think he should do, standards that are much higher than anyone else and standards that frankly would fly against the face of reason for anyone in america and for anyone who believes in capitalism.



that makes you the hypocrite.

 

[Ducttape]

Disproportionality sir. Clearly, that is the point. Black males are what, 6-7% of the total population?

We need to fix this as a society. Zero tolerance.

This is an absurd conversation Duct.

Your link is dumb and pointless and everyone knows the reality of this situation.

Such a waste of freaking time discussing this with you because you're completely full of it...

Black males do the majority of the killing in the country, and they do it in cities.

Not on a hillside on someone's farm...(unless you're in South Africa).

actually, the amount of homicides by blacks slightly is more than the amount of homicides by whites.

in 2019, the latest report i can find, white homicide was 3432, blacks 4157.

yes, you eliminate black on black homicides, you could trim the homicides by half, but you still have a significant number of homicides.




but - yes i am changing/refocusing the discussion - if you eliminate black on black homicides, that would do nothing to change the likelihood of a non-black being killed by gun violence. and as noted before, most of america does not care about black on black violence.

 

[pmrmd]

Such a waste of freaking time discussing this with you because you're completely full of it...

Black males do the majority of the killing in the country, and they do it in cities.

Not on a hillside on someone's farm...(unless you're in South Africa).

Lol
Scrubbing the data to look at “per capita” rates is simply to redirect attention out of the murder zones of Chicago and the like.

1 event in the middle of no where looks statistically terrible but misses entirely the problem.

Intellectual mendacity and sophistry.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

fwiw, it is from the Forbes article that you posted that states that he still has a mortgage on one of the houses.


and this:



so you are insistent on ad hominem attacks.

only interested in scapegoating him.

even though he pays the right amount of taxes for his tax bracket.

even though he donates amounts similar to other people in his tax bracket.

even though he has not taken advantage of the perks of his office.

even though the proceeds of his book sales are the sole reason he has over 1.2 million dollars, an amount that, if he did not get, would have put him right at where 50% of senior citizens possess.

he is doing what the system requires him to do, and when the laws change, he will continue to follow them.

but YOU - YOU hold him to standards you made up based on what you think he should do, standards that are much higher than anyone else and standards that frankly would fly against the face of reason for anyone in america and for anyone who believes in capitalism.



that makes you the hypocrite.

Go back and read my posts because I've already made all of my points and addressed everything you're mentioning. You'll see why he should be held to a higher standard. Mortgage at one time or another is irrelevant and doesn't justify you still not reading the articles you linked, and I never said anything about taxes. You can keep bringing up the same questions if you want but I already my point multiple times.

 

[Ducttape]

clearly you are incorrect.


but then again, all you have are ad hominem attacks.

 

[Ducttape]

Lol
Scrubbing the data to look at “per capita” rates is simply to redirect attention out of the murder zones of Chicago and the like.

1 event in the middle of no where looks statistically terrible but misses entirely the problem.

Intellectual mendacity and sophistry.

i posted several articles that show that there are several communities outside of chicago and new orleans that have much higher murder rates. and i should edit that rates are as important as overall numbers because rates are more likely to affect a specific individual than overall numbers especially in places with huge populations.

you should go back and read them.


gun crime occurs throughout the US. you should examine your bias in to thinking only occurs in the big cities because it is everywhere.

 

[bubaghanush]

Just read any of my posts above and it'll explain everything to you. I've given clear examples several times. Sorry, I'm too angry and upset about Charlie Kirk to continue this right now.

Sorry about Charlie Kirk. No one should be targeted for their speech.

---

I don't understand your points. This is the same argument about Omar having a wealthy husband. Bernie doesn't preach every American having the exact same amount of wealth. Advocating for progressive policy (taxing uber wealthy, student loan forgiveness, higher minimum wage) doesn't mean you are not allowed to have more that one home. These policies are a far cry from true socialism. And his policy doesn't say anything about charity. Bernie advocates for redistribution of wealth.

Bernie Sanders has to be one of the worst examples of a politician hypocrite. Disagree with his policy positions, but he is almost annoyingly consistent on his message.

There is a very old quote from him in the 1980s saying he believes it is government that should support social programs, not charity. Also check out "Bernie's Mittens" - this was a viral meme merchandise that his campaign donated $1.8 million to charity.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Sorry about Charlie Kirk. No one should be targeted for their speech.

---

I don't understand your points. This is the same argument about Omar having a wealthy husband. Bernie doesn't preach every American having the exact same amount of wealth. Advocating for progressive policy (taxing uber wealthy, student loan forgiveness, higher minimum wage) doesn't mean you are not allowed to have more that one home. These policies are a far cry from true socialism. And his policy doesn't say anything about charity. Bernie advocates for redistribution of wealth.

Bernie Sanders has to be one of the worst examples of a politician hypocrite. Disagree with his policy positions, but he is almost annoyingly consistent on his message.

There is a very old quote from him in the 1980s saying he believes it is government that should support social programs, not charity. Also check out "Bernie's Mittens" - this was a viral meme merchandise that his campaign donated $1.8 million to charity.

-His campaign money is not his money, so it is irrelevant.
-Once again, I'm not discussing his positions, I'm discussing him

I guess you and I have a different value system. I don't want to tell people who are richer than I am that they should redistribute their money, or if I do tell them, at least I should show that I redistribute mine to the same degree. One does not need $3 million dollars net worth to survive or be comfortable and definitely not more than one house, especially when the average American doesn't even own one home and has nowhere close to the savings that he does. His own tax returns showed that he made a mere ~2% in charitable donations.

None of this is saying that he didn't earn his money, that it's wrong to have money or multiple homes, or that he should donate anything at all to charity. I don't care about any of that. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy for someone to push so hard against wealth inequality when being extremely inequitable himself. This is obvious to anyone who is not partisan. I even said I like the guy, and I'm glad that he argues the points that he's arguing, so I'm obviously not trying to discredit him in any way.

I couldn't live by yours or ducttape's value system. Either I would keep my mouth shut or if I'm going to complain, I would lead by example. I honestly don't know how anyone else could not agree with that but you're free to do however you wish. You can have your values and I'll have mine. I would just never want to do a business deal with someone like you.

 

[bubaghanush]

-His campaign money is not his money, so it is irrelevant.
-Once again, I'm not discussing his positions, I'm discussing him

I guess you and I have a different value system. I don't want to tell people who are richer than I am that they should redistribute their money, or if I do tell them, at least I should show that I redistribute mine to the same degree. One does not need $3 million dollars net worth to survive or be comfortable and definitely not more than one house, especially when the average American doesn't even own one home and has nowhere close to the savings that he does. His own tax returns showed that he made a mere ~2% in charitable donations.

None of this is saying that he didn't earn his money, that it's wrong to have money or multiple homes, or that he should donate anything at all to charity. I don't care about any of that. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy for someone to push so hard against wealth inequality when being extremely inequitable himself. This is obvious to anyone who is not partisan. I even said I like the guy, and I'm glad that he argues the points that he's arguing, so I'm obviously not trying to discredit him in any way.

I couldn't live by yours or ducttape's value system. Either I would keep my mouth shut or if I'm going to complain, I would lead by example. I honestly don't know how anyone else could not agree with that but you're free to do however you wish. You can have your values and I'll have mine. I would just never want to do a business deal with someone like you.

You can tell yourself that, but by your posts you are deeply invested in proving he is a 'hypocrite' despite all evidence to the contrary. I never saw you mention how exactly his policy is inconsistent with his current economic position. By your arbitrary standard, anyone that advocates for a higher tax rate should give away their wealth until their net worth equals the average American.

Sounds fine about your values. I never mentioned mine or that I follow Bernie Sanders. Maybe you are projecting. And of course you're free not to do business with me.

 

[Ducttape]

i wonder if you feel strongly about hypocrisy that it goes both ways.

would you insist that trump live on SNAP, because he is making executive decisions on this program?

do you think Vance should not have any insurance, as he advocates for cutting Medicaid.

do you believe that Johnson should donate money to fund government covered healthcare as he passes bills that gut Medicare.


here is something a lot less controversial. do you believe - as i do - that congress members divest from stock trading as they take advantage of inside knowledge?


yes these examples are hyperbole but id be interested to know, since you are so negative of Sanders acting like the average american, whether you feel republican leaders should also do so.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

You can tell yourself that, but by your posts you are deeply invested in proving he is a 'hypocrite' despite all evidence to the contrary. I never saw you mention how exactly his policy is inconsistent with his current economic position. By your arbitrary standard, anyone that advocates for a higher tax rate should give away their wealth until their net worth equals the average American.

Sounds fine about your values. I never mentioned mine or that I follow Bernie Sanders. Maybe you are projecting. And of course you're free not to do business with me.

So I can understand your position better:

• Are you claiming that he doesn't constantly rail against wealth inequality?
• Are you claiming that he's not part of the wealth inequality on the higher end?
• Are you claiming he's not strongly against so few having so much and so many having so little?
• Are you claiming that he's not part of the so few who have so much?

Am I projecting that I'm a closet Bernie Sanders fan? I don't understand.

And yes, if I had strong feelings against wealth inequality, I wouldn't be a part of and contribute to the inequity that I felt was so wrong. Needless to say but I don't have strong feelings against it simply because people aren't equal. Advocating for a higher tax rate is not the same as railing against wealth inequity.

To better illustrate my position, Chuck Feeney is someone who I wouldn't consider to be a hypocrite, especially as he was pretty mum throughout his life. Here's the difference:

• created businesses
• created jobs
• generated tax revenue
• donataed billions of dollars to charity
• lived in a small apartment
• never owned a house and definitely not 3 homes
• never owned a car
• never owned a plane, never even flew first class

So now, are you still confused about where I coming from?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

i wonder if you feel strongly about hypocrisy that it goes both ways.

would you insist that trump live on SNAP, because he is making executive decisions on this program?

do you think Vance should not have any insurance, as he advocates for cutting Medicaid.

do you believe that Johnson should donate money to fund government covered healthcare as he passes bills that gut Medicare.


here is something a lot less controversial. do you believe - as i do - that congress members divest from stock trading as they take advantage of inside knowledge?


yes these examples are hyperbole but id be interested to know, since you are so negative of Sanders acting like the average american, whether you feel republican leaders should also do so.

We're not talking about other issues or other pols. We're talking talking about Bernie. But other people are hypocrites for sure. Using you first examply of Trump being a hypo for SNAP, of course not. I wouldn't want someone on SNAP making decisions about receiving SNAP benefits. That would be a conflict of interest.

Should congress divest from trading, no - of course not, but they should refrain from trading on inside info just like everyone else. Where you draw that line needs to come from someone who has researched it more and shouldn't be decided by the people who have the potential to make insder tradaes. Another conflict of interest.

Better examples of hypocrisy, not a pol, but Ted Haggard comes to mind. Of course, that's a complicated issue as he's dealing with his religious teachings conflicting with his sexual desires, etc.

 

[bubaghanush]

So I can understand your position better:

• Are you claiming that he doesn't constantly rail against wealth inequality?
• Are you claiming that he's not part of the wealth inequality on the higher end?
• Are you claiming he's not strongly against so few having so much and so many having so little?
• Are you claiming that he's not part of the so few who have so much?

Am I projecting that I'm a closet Bernie Sanders fan? I don't understand.

And yes, if I had strong feelings against wealth inequality, I wouldn't be a part of and contribute to the inequity that I felt was so wrong. Needless to say but I don't have strong feelings against it simply because people aren't equal. Advocating for a higher tax rate is not the same as railing against wealth inequity.

To better illustrate my position, Chuck Feeney is someone who I wouldn't consider to be a hypocrite, especially as he was pretty mum throughout his life. Here's the difference:

• created businesses
• created jobs
• generated tax revenue
• donataed billions of dollars to charity
• lived in a small apartment
• never owned a house and definitely not 3 homes
• never owned a car
• never owned a plane, never even flew first class

So now, are you still confused about where I coming from?

I have asked several times for what specific policy of his is in contrast to his personal economic status that makes him a hypocrite.

I'm not confused about your position. It just makes no logical sense as it is an arbitrary standard you've made, and doesn't contradict the policies that he is extremely consistent in advocating.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

I have asked several times for what specific policy of his is in contrast to his personal economic status that makes him a hypocrite.

I'm not confused about your position. It just makes no logical sense as it is an arbitrary standard you've made, and doesn't contradict the policies that he is extremely consistent in advocating.

Once again, over and over again. I'm criticizing him and the things he says, not his policies. I think you might be a second account for ducttape. Maybe that's why you don't want access to the attending forum.

let me refer you upstairs:

Post in: 'socialism'

Sep 10, 2025

dont fall into the hyperalgresia straw-man trap.

if you start with an erroneous assumption (lie) then your whole argument is meaningless.

1. his is not for economic equality. he is for reducing economic inequality (billionaires, decreased middle class, etc). there is a huge and distinct difference.
2. he is indeed for more affordable housing. he has a house in DC, where he works, and a house in vermont, where he lives. this is the standard model for a senator. also, this is his "vacation house". hardly the ritz. i dont see how this counteracts his message
View attachment 409029

3. any...

• Pain Applicant1

and some quotes

“The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time. It is unsustainable when so few have so much and so many have so little.” – Campaign rally, 2015

“Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little, by which Wall Street’s greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I do not.” – Democratic debate, October 2015 (he made millions from the capitalist system that allowed him to have so much when so many have so little)

 

[bubaghanush]

Once again, over and over again. I'm criticizing him and the things he says, not his policies. I think you might be a second account for ducttape. Maybe that's why you don't want access to the attending forum.

Lol I take this as a compliment. I hope ducttape is not offended 🤣

 

[1 Up]

Bernie Sanders has to be one of the worst examples of a politician hypocrite. Disagree with his policy positions, but he is almost annoyingly consistent on his message.

You know, I used to think that too. Then I started following him on X. He lies on a near constant basis, like the rest of them. I lost most respect for him at that point, unfortunately. Follow him and you'll see.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Lol I take this as a compliment. I hope ducttape is not offended 🤣

Appreciate the dialogue. Kindly consider hitting the attending forum, but completely up to you of course. If you don't like it you can always delete that part of your account. We can loosen up in there and be a bit more open and nastier to each other. You know all the fun stuff.

You're a smart dude and have a lot to say and all of them are smart dudes and also have a lot to say. I think you'd enjoy it. No pressure of course.

 

[Ducttape]

to be truthful, i am not a bernie supporter per se.

i believe in some of his policies but he also does have the goal of inflaming a certain population rather than measured discourse, something you would not see in Jeff Jackson or Adam Kinzinger.

i used your critiques to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring the hypocrisy of right wing politiicians while calling out bernie.

---

your two quotes were taken before he got money from writing books. according to open secrets, his net worth in 2015 was $712,000. so at the exact time he was making those quotes, he actually was underperforming his age demographic. there is no data from 2016, but open secrets shows no payments from Macmillan before 2017.

Bernie Sanders- Net Worth - Personal Finances

Bernie Sanders's estimated net worth for 2015 is $712,516. Learn more about their investments and assets.

www.opensecrets.org

again, the massive influx was primarily from his work in publishing starting in 2016.

he has continued advocating the same policies even though he did get a financial windfall in his work.

but of course, he should completely change his finances after he wrote books that people apparently want to read and donate all that money to a dysfunctional government that would waste every single penny, essentially throwing away money.

OR... he could continue to advocate for system changes to make lives better for the lower 99% americans in wealth and continue to be a participating member of the system.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

to be truthful, i am not a bernie supporter per se.

i believe in some of his policies but he also does have the goal of inflaming a certain population rather than measured discourse, something you would not see in Jeff Jackson or Adam Kinzinger.

i used your critiques to point out the hypocrisy of ignoring the hypocrisy of right wing politiicians while calling out bernie.

---

your two quotes were taken before he got money from writing books. according to open secrets, his net worth in 2015 was $712,000. so at the exact time he was making those quotes, he actually was underperforming his age demographic. there is no data from 2016, but open secrets shows no payments from Macmillan before 2017.

Bernie Sanders- Net Worth - Personal Finances

Bernie Sanders's estimated net worth for 2015 is $712,516. Learn more about their investments and assets.

www.opensecrets.org

View attachment 409152

View attachment 409154

again, the massive influx was primarily from his work in publishing starting in 2016.

View attachment 409155



he has continued advocating the same policies even though he did get a financial windfall in his work.

but of course, he should completely change his finances after he wrote books that people apparently want to read and donate all that money to a dysfunctional government that would waste every single penny, essentially throwing away money.

OR... he could continue to advocate for system changes to make lives better for the lower 99% americans in wealth and continue to be a participating member of the system.

You're trying to deflect. First strawman, now deflection. I'm not ignoring, we're talking about Bernie, not trump, not another righty, not aoc. This is not kindergarten and a "...but Johnny did it to situation". Start up a thread about them if you want.

He doesn't have to donate money to the dysfunctional gov you're referring to. There are many ways to donate your wealth. I will refer to a couple of the posts upstairs that you seemed to have missed. Or better yet, read up on Chuck Feeney on your own. Then you'll learn how to donate.

The real reason you can't accept that Bernie is a hypocrite is that you're even a bigger one than he is. You likely don't donate much (if you donate at all) since you don't know how, you want primary care doctors to make more money but only if it doesn't reduce money from your pocket, you want more money for doctors when the system has no money to give, and worst of all, you're a socialist who is also a multimillionaire. Implicating Bernie would be implicating yourself, so your argument is no surprise.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

, his net worth in 2015 was $712,000. so at the exact time he was making those quotes, he actually was underperforming his age demographic.

Here's more of your hypocrisy. You constantly lambast people for not using data or doing their homework blah blah blah but you are the most guilty of not researching your argument and putting out nonsensical garbo data.

Let's ignore the fact that you don't even read the ridiculous links you post for a second, as you've proven multiple times over.

You do realize that the median American net worth has increased substantially since 2015. Sanders would have been around 73 yo back then. The median net worth in that demographic was about $233k, and you yourself just stated that Sanders's net worth was over $700k. You also stated that "he actually was underperforming his age demographic." So sorry to bust you, but he was worth more than 3 times the median American. So, like you, he is in fact a hypocrite. Thank you for solidifying my argument.

Net Worth by Age Calculator for the United States in 2016

Below is a net worth by age percentile calculator for the United States in 2016 (find the newest net worth by age calculator here). Enter net worth and the age of a household's primary earner

dqydj.com

PS. I know the difference between to and too no worries

 

[Ducttape]

i noticed you used median. why did you not mention average, especially since you are so concerned that he is so much wealthier than the average american?

average net worth was $1.06 million for the 70-74 age group. so he was below the average.

the top 1% by age for 70-74 is 11.63 million. his net worth was 1/10th of the top 1%.

face it. he is not the ultra wealthy. he is not the top 1%. there is no way you can try to spin numbers to make him to be in the top 1% of wealth in our country, whether in 2015 or now.


he is discussing policies to make lives better for the lowest 99% of the US population, and that is to redistribute the wealth inequities by targetting the top 1%.



and again and again, ad hominem attacks.

focus on his policies. lets hear you critique them.

Attack the problem, not the person.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

i noticed you used median. why did you not mention average, especially since you are so concerned that he is so much wealthier than the average american?

average net worth was $1.06 million for the 70-74 age group. so he was below the average.

the top 1% by age for 70-74 is 11.63 million. his net worth was 1/10th of the top 1%.

face it. he is not the ultra wealthy. he is not the top 1%. there is no way you can try to spin numbers to make him to be in the top 1% of wealth in our country, whether in 2015 or now.


he is discussing policies to make lives better for the lowest 99% of the US population, and that is to redistribute the wealth inequities by targetting the top 1%.



and again and again, ad hominem attacks.

focus on his policies. lets hear you critique them.

Attack the problem, not the person.

Needless to say again but I'm attacking him directly, and you too for that matter since you're both in the same boat.

Median is more representative because average is skewed upwards. Please tell me you know this elementary fact. If you want, I can spell out a quick example if you really need me to do it

Who said he's in the top 1%? Even if we use your posts despite it probably being wrong as usual, I think you said 3%. That still puts him 97% above Americans. Even if he's in the top 5%, still richer the the bottom 95%. Way closer to a hypo phony than someone who practices or who should lecture others on wealth inequity.

 

[Ducttape]

and tell me you are aware he is not in the top 1% of wealth regardless of how you try to paint him.

you obviously dont even know his policies. you are berating him because he is not a conservative right wing politician and you feel the need to attack him because he threatens the misconceived concept that he may be threatening your livelihood.

he is not going after you. you are not the 1%. and if you are affected by his policies, guess what, he will be do and based on his past history, he will be more than willing to pay up.


btw, since you clearly do not understand what ad hominem means:

1. ad ho·mi·nem
   [ˌad ˈhämənəm]
   adjective
   ad hominem (adjective)
   1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
      "vicious ad hominem attacks"
   
   adverb
   ad hominem (adverb)
   1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
      "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
      

and here is why ad hominem logical fallacy is a weak and frankly stupid argument:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background.

 

[MitchLevi]

i posted several articles that show that there are several communities outside of chicago and new orleans that have much higher murder rates. and i should edit that rates are as important as overall numbers because rates are more likely to affect a specific individual than overall numbers especially in places with huge populations.

you should go back and read them.


gun crime occurs throughout the US. you should examine your bias in to thinking only occurs in the big cities because it is everywhere.

Your ridiculous link tried to make the argument that most gun homicide doesn’t occur in big cities, and listed big cities as 1M ppl or more.

As if there’s a difference in a city with 100k, 500k or 3.8M ppl.

This is a catastrophically absurd discussion to have with you.

The facts remain, gun murder is 7x more likely in that community. It isn’t a county problem, it’s a problem where bricks and mortar combine to make buildings, and asphalt is used to create roads.

19.5M black males, roughly 6% of the population commits over half the murder.

Do not reply to me.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

and tell me you are aware he is not in the top 1% of wealth regardless of how you try to paint him.

you obviously dont even know his policies. you are berating him because he is not a conservative right wing politician and you feel the need to attack him because he threatens the misconceived concept that he may be threatening your livelihood.

he is not going after you. you are not the 1%. and if you are affected by his policies, guess what, he will be do and based on his past history, he will be more than willing to pay up.


btw, since you clearly do not understand what ad hominem means:

1. ad ho·mi·nem
   [ˌad ˈhämənəm]
   adjective
   ad hominem(adjective)
   1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
      "vicious ad hominem attacks"
   
   adverb
   ad hominem(adverb)
   1. in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:
      "these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"

and here is why ad hominem logical fallacy is a weak and frankly stupid argument:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background.

Oh brother. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I am criticizing his character. I don't feel threatened by him. I already said I'm glad he's around and that he brings up important issues. I never said he's in the one percent. Quit bringing up the same **** already, it's getting annoying.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Needless to say again but I'm attacking him directly, and you too for that matter since you're both in the same boat.

Median is more representative because average is skewed upwards. Please tell me you know this elementary fact. If you want, I can spell out a quick example if you really need me to do it

Who said he's in the top 1%? Even if we use your posts despite it probably being wrong as usual, I think you said 3%. That still puts him 97% above Americans. Even if he's in the top 5%, still richer the the bottom 95%. Way closer to a hypo phony than someone who practices or who should lecture others on wealth inequity.

This is such an odd discussion.

As far as I am aware, Bernie pays his taxes like most of us. If the policies he wants passed are actually passed, his tax burden (like all of us here) will go up and I have no reason to think he won't pay up like we all will.

He has skin in the game so far as I know. Not sure why he has to live a pauper's life to support the policies that he supports.

 

[clubdeac]

i wonder if you feel strongly about hypocrisy that it goes both ways.

would you insist that trump live on SNAP, because he is making executive decisions on this program?

do you think Vance should not have any insurance, as he advocates for cutting Medicaid.

do you believe that Johnson should donate money to fund government covered healthcare as he passes bills that gut Medicare.


here is something a lot less controversial. do you believe - as i do - that congress members divest from stock trading as they take advantage of inside knowledge?


yes these examples are hyperbole but id be interested to know, since you are so negative of Sanders acting like the average american, whether you feel republican leaders should also do so.

All of these examples are factually incorrect and hyperbolic and you know it. Quit spouting nonsense just bc you hate who’s in office

 

[clubdeac]

Your ridiculous link tried to make the argument that most gun homicide doesn’t occur in big cities, and listed big cities as 1M ppl or more.

As if there’s a difference in a city with 100k, 500k or 3.8M ppl.

This is a catastrophically absurd discussion to have with you.

The facts remain, gun murder is 7x more likely in that community. It isn’t a county problem, it’s a problem where bricks and mortar combine to make buildings, and asphalt is used to create roads.

19.5M black males, roughly 6% of the population commits over half the murder.

Do not reply to me.

Yeah duct failed to include per capita. His data regarding this is purposely misleading. The comparison is not even remotely close but that would be impossible for him to accept

 

[Ducttape]

Your ridiculous link tried to make the argument that most gun homicide doesn’t occur in big cities, and listed big cities as 1M ppl or more.

As if there’s a difference in a city with 100k, 500k or 3.8M ppl.

This is a catastrophically absurd discussion to have with you.

The facts remain, gun murder is 7x more likely in that community. It isn’t a county problem, it’s a problem where bricks and mortar combine to make buildings, and asphalt is used to create roads.

19.5M black males, roughly 6% of the population commits over half the murder.

Do not reply to me.

wow you seem focused on that 1 statistic.

you as a non black should feel safe in the large cities tho, if most of the gun crimes are black on black.

i just showed you that 40% or more of gun homicides are by whites. that is not a per capita statistic. (i did state that gun deaths

i also showed you that there are multiple communities where gun murders are far more prevalent by rate than the largest cities.

i have quoted numbers from the FBI that specifically point out that gun violence is in the entire USA, yet you ignore it.

and i did not state per capita because the FBI numbers are not per capita but based on the total number. and i did state that eliminating black on black murder would reduce homicides significantly but would not alter white gun homicides, which you so blithely ignore, apparently as not an issue.

even if we eliminated black on black homicides, the US homicide rate would still be 30 times higher than that in italy, sweden, ireland, austria, switzerland, spain, australia, france, finland, germany, UK...

gun violence is not only a black problem. it is a US problem. not sure why you cannot comprehend that.

This is such an odd discussion.

As far as I am aware, Bernie pays his taxes like most of us. If the policies he wants passed are actually passed, his tax burden (like all of us here) will go up and I have no reason to think he won't pay up like we all will.

He has skin in the game so far as I know. Not sure why he has to live a pauper's life to support the policies that he supports.

exactly.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

This is such an odd discussion.

As far as I am aware, Bernie pays his taxes like most of us. If the policies he wants passed are actually passed, his tax burden (like all of us here) will go up and I have no reason to think he won't pay up like we all will.

He has skin in the game so far as I know. Not sure why he has to live a pauper's life to support the policies that he supports.

It's not odd at all. Don't let the ductaper tie your brain into one of the double-knotted shoe lace ties when the loop gets pulled out. When he doesn't know what to do, he frantically googles and posts random links he doesn't read, which at times support the counterpoint to what he's trying to make. He'll also move towards strawman --> diversion --> strawman as he's doing now or post random irrelevant definitions that he'll sometimes redact to try and make his point.

Anyway, it's really simple and I never brought up taxes. Bottom line is straightforward: someone who expects people richer than they are to redistribute their wealth should first redistribute his own wealth. It would make his argument that much stronger.

 

[Ducttape]

ive noticed that you hate losing arguments even when you are clearly in the wrong.

hence your persistent ad hominem replies, especially while never responding to any of the critiques and and lack of factual basis to justify your flawed thoughts.

Bottom line is straightforward: someone who expects people richer than they are to redistribute their wealth should first redistribute his own wealth.

Tu quoque logical fallacy.

or in simpler terms, "appeal to hypocrisy" logical fallacy.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

ive noticed that you hate losing arguments even when you are clearly in the wrong.

hence your persistent ad hominem replies, especially while never responding to any of the critiques and and lack of factual basis to justify your flawed thoughts.


Tu quoque logical fallacy.

or in simpler terms, "appeal to hypocrisy" logical fallacy.

I don't mind losing an argument but what am I wrong about? As I repeated multiple times, I am attacking his character, not his policies. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. You keep saying I'm making ad hominem attacks as if you're proving a point. Obviously, that's exactly what I'm doing and have been clear about this the entire time.

Also, as I mentioned, I'm directly attacking you, too, because you're also a socialist hypocrite. I'll tell you what, I'll donate $100 right now to a non-political charity if you post your tax returns (redacted) showing that you donated more than Sanders did to charity. For someone who believes in a redistribution of wealth, I would expect your charitable donations to be very high, but I bet it's not. If it's not, as I suspect, you are a hypocrite for only wanting to redistribute someone else's wealth and not your own. If you are a generous donor, then your favorite apolitical charity will receive an additional $100. Nothing for you to lose from this. I'll trust you to be sincere and not create a fake tax return. We'll have to have some way to prove this.

One of us is losing it because I don't think you and I are having the same conversation. If anyone else is still wasting time reading this, can someone else objective kindly chime in to help me understand the ductapers point? I don't know how else to convey my point to him. Can someone translate from ductape to English so I can better understand our disconnect?