Ocasio-Cortez, progressives trash 'antisemitic' Politico illustration of Bernie Sanders

[Uncle Joe]

Ocasio-Cortez, progressives trash 'antisemitic' Politico illustration of Bernie Sanders
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) joined a growing crowd of progressives on Twitter Saturday to denounce illustrations published by Politico as anti-Semitic.

The illustrations in question, published Friday as part of a Politico investigation into Sanders' wealth and how he came to be worth just over $1 million, depict Sanders, who is Jewish, next to a tree made of money, while another shows a grinning Sanders appearing to hold his house in the palm of his hand while two other properties he owns sit on his shoulders.

(snip)

"Can ⁦@politico⁩ explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how 'cheap' and rich he is *isn’t* antisemitic?" the congresswoman wrote, adding: "Or are they just letting this happen because he’s a progressive politician they don’t like?"

(snip)

Sanders, who is currently placing second in most polls of early 2020 Democratic primary states, would be the first Jewish president if elected to the office in 2020.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/445562-ocasio-cortez-progressives-trash-antisemitic-politico-illustration-of-bernie

[DavidDvorkin]

1. It's not anti-semitic

It's anti-Sanders. It's specifically about the conflict between his rhetoric and his newfound wealth. That applies to him, not to any of the other candidates. His being the only Jewish candidate is irrelevant.

[melman]

3. Seriously?

Look at this. I mean..come on.

[tinrobot]

21. Might not be the best image, but anti-semitic?

I don't see it.

[melman]

23. "might be cheap, but he's not poor"

cheap but not poor = rich and stingy

from wiki:

Foxman describes six facets of canards used by proponents of economic antisemitism:

All Jews are wealthy.[9]
Jews are stingy and greedy.[10]
Powerful Jews control the business world.[11]
Judaism emphasizes profit and materialism[12]
Jews may cheat non-Jews[13]
Jews use their power to benefit "their own kind."[14]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#Stereotypes_and_canards

[tinrobot]

29. Just going off that one picture you posted.

All I see is a guy with some houses.

[MaryMagdaline]

103. "Cheap." Enough said

[lapucelle]

104. It was his friend and economic advisor Bruce Seifer who is quoted as calling BS "cheap".

[BS] was, said Bruce Seifer, a friend of Sanders, an economic aide in his administration and one of many people who know him who told me this, “frugal.” Seifer paused and considered the right way to put it. “That’s a nice way of saying he’s a cheap son of a bitch.”

[sheshe2]

155. OMG!

[BS] was, said Bruce Seifer, a friend of Sanders, an economic aide in his administration and one of many people who know him who told me this, “frugal.” Seifer paused and considered the right way to put it. “That’s a nice way of saying he’s a cheap son of a bitch.”

Guess he should fire his staffer for being Anti-Semantic.

[lapucelle]

157. There's a long list of Steiners he should fire as well.

[sheshe2]

158. Well, yeah.

Those too.

[George II]

116. That's quite a stretch. Nowhere in that article are any of those statements, and nowhere....

....in that article was it mentioned that Sanders is Jewish. To pull them out of a wikipedia piece and attribute those six statements to the article is unconscionable.

My brother-in-law is the cheapest person I've ever known, he gets teased about it at family gatherings, and he's proud of it.

He's Catholic.

You might want to see this in the Jewish Journal "Best of the Web" section:

https://jewishjournal.com/newsroom/money/how-does-a-socialist-get-so-rich/

[melman]

117. .

And you might want to see this statement from the ADL

Link to tweet

[George II]

118. And the fact remains that the article didn't mention that Sanders is Jewish nor were....

....the six statements you provided as "proof" of anti-Semitism in the article.

If I were to talk about Mitt Romney's wealth would I be considered anti-Mormon?
If I were to talk about Nancy Pelosi's wealth would I be considered anti-Catholic?

[melman]

119. Wow

[George II]

120. .

[melman]

122. That post more than speaks for itself

No further comment was required.

[ehrnst]

151. And yet, you felt a need to comment.

[mcar]

22. Not anti-Semitic

[ck4829]

6. Also... Ilhan Omar needs to say it too!

[George II]

121. She actually did on twitter either last night or this morning. Ironic.

[NurseJackie]

8. Thank you. That's how I see it too.

I'm fairly "meh" about the whole "controversy". This has no legs.

[NurseJackie]

113. The Politico story on BS's millions is recommended on Jewish Journal's "Best of the Web"

Check this out: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287133064

[DavidDvorkin]

115. And there it is

Thanks.

[BannonsLiver]

123. Nailed it

It’s basically a desperate attempt by Sanders supporters to change the narrative away from Bernie’s wealth which they know does not play well.

[backtoblue]

2. The visuals are anti-Semitic as hell.

A Jewish man with a digitalised money tree, holding up his "mansions".

I'm not a Bernie supporter because of his crankiness. But goddamn it, there are nazis in the street, a "residen t" fueling anti-Semitism, and a rise in white supremacy TERRORISM.


SHAME.

[Celerity]

5. +10000

[obnoxiousdrunk]

33. +1. N/t

[backtoblue]

44. Adding link to the money tree picture at the top of the article for reference

He is portrayed in the article as being "rich". It's the visual picture, along with the premise that makes this anti-Semitic.

[Uncle Joe]

79. Now I believe, this image would not be anti-Semitic

Peace to you backtoblue

[backtoblue]

88. Thanks Joe

Did you do this one?

[Uncle Joe]

90. No,

I pulled it off a tweet.

[backtoblue]

129. .

[lapucelle]

100. BS is not portrayed as rich. BS is rich. The article is about how he got rich.

The Secret of Bernie’s Millions

How did he amass three houses and a net worth approaching at least $2 million? The surprisingly conventional middle-class climbing of a radical-sounding socialist.

snip=======================================

In the wake of his 2016 presidential run, the most lucrative thing he’s ever done, the 77-year-old self-described democratic socialist is a three-home-owning millionaire with a net worth approaching at least $2 million, taking into account his publicly outlined assets and liabilities along with the real estate he owns outright. In a strict, bottom-line sense, Sanders has become one of those rich people against whom he has so unrelentingly railed. The champion of the underclass and castigator of “the 1 percent” has found himself in the socioeconomic penthouse of his rhetorical boogeymen. This development, seen mostly as the result of big bucks brought in by the slate of books he’s put out in the past few years, predictably has elicited snarky pokes, partisan jabs and charges of hypocrisy. The millionaire socialist!

[MaryMagdaline]

102. Agreed. The "cheap" comment shows their hand

[lapucelle]

105. Whose hand? It was BS's friend and political advisor who is quoted as calling BS "cheap".

He was, said Bruce Seifer, a friend of Sanders, an economic aide in his administration and one of many people who know him who told me this, “frugal.” Seifer paused and considered the right way to put it. “That’s a nice way of saying he’s a cheap son of a bitch.”

What is the "hand" Bruce Seifer is showing by calling his friend "cheap"?

[MaryMagdaline]

110. Bruce Seifer did not write the tweet

Someone at Politico wrote the tweet. Bruce Seifer did not produce the pictures. Seifer’s endearing remarks about his friend are not at issue here. But you know that already. If you don’t see the anti-Semitism jump off the page, then you are lucky. I see it; it hurts; and I can’t unsee it.

[lapucelle]

111. You said, "The 'cheap' comment shows their hand".

It's Bruce Seifer who called BS "cheap". Bruce Seifer says BS is "cheap" and Politico rejoins with "but not poor".

It's Seifer who made the claim on the record that BS is cheap. Politico reported it.

The money tree is a reference to the topic of the piece,

The Secret of Bernie’s Millions

How did he amass three houses and a net worth approaching at least $2 million? The surprisingly conventional middle-class climbing of a radical-sounding socialist.

[MaryMagdaline]

152. Keep trying. Maybe I'll forget I read what I read.

[lapucelle]

159. I won't forget what I read.

MaryMagdaline
102. Agreed. The "cheap" comment shows their hand

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1287132124#post102

Whose hand? It was BS's friend and political advisor who is quoted as calling BS "cheap".

[Celerity]

4. I am zero percent a Bernie fan, BUT this is so so antisemitic

A fucking MONEY TREE and a Jew. Come the fuck on.

It is also a joke to say Bernie is now some 1% hypocrite. His total wealth is nowhere near the top 1%, which STARTS at over 10 million USD.

[backtoblue]

9. .

I'm truly at a loss.

Symbolism is a powerful propaganda tool for hate.

Im two seconds from flaming out. If Fox News would have published this.....

[Celerity]

10. it is sickening to see

You do NOT have to be a Sanderite to call this SHIT out. Our political discourse and zeitgeist is once again becoming so goddamn coarsened it is becoming a socio-psychological bone saw.

[Susan Calvin]

16. Thank you. nt

[yardwork]

81. I agree, but at the same time, Sanders opened himself up to this.

It's stupid to attack any candidate for being rich. However, one candidate has made such attacks a feature of his campaigns.

[Hortensis]

86. Pssst -- whatever we do, we can't mention Sanders

and socialism either. Connecting Jews with socialism or communism is a BIG antisemitic trope.

We can discuss finance and socialism about any of the other candidates, but not the Jewish one. And we should be very angry if the FEC requires him to report his campaign finances because we all know what that's really about!

Everyone got that? In fact, someone should let Sanders himself know about the socialism thing so he can stop inadvertently stirring up antisemitic themes.

[FreeBe]

92. This is what I am hearing.

[lapucelle]

101. The article is about how BS amassed his wealth and about his being a millionaire socialist.

In a strict, bottom-line sense, Sanders has become one of those rich people against whom he has so unrelentingly railed. The champion of the underclass and castigator of “the 1 percent” has found himself in the socioeconomic penthouse of his rhetorical boogeymen. This development, seen mostly as the result of big bucks brought in by the slate of books he’s put out in the past few years, predictably has elicited snarky pokes, partisan jabs and charges of hypocrisy. The millionaire socialist!

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982

There is nothing antisemitic about trying to reconcile "socialist" BS's status as an establishment millionaire with his carefully crafted political image as something else entirely.

I'm not sure why Cortez is trying to shut down a journalist simply because he dared to write an article about the millions of dollars and the three homes that BS has acquired during his time in public service. I wonder if she read the article.

[ck4829]

7. K&R

[yaesu]

11. 1 million dollars isn't wealthy, its upper middle class & I can now put politico in the same G file

as fox snooze.

[ehrnst]

96. Why do you think Bernie went from talking about "millionaires" to talking only

about the "billionaire class" when he joined ranks of the wealthy?

The top 5% of earners had average annual wages of $299,810 in 2017, according to the Social Security data. That’s more than five times the 2017 average wages of $53,474. Overall, this group lays claim to a 28.1% share of wages in the U.S.

To be certified as a one-percenter, you’ll need to earn $718,766. One-percenters have a 13.4% share of wages.

Actually, Fox Snooze said that having $250,000 wasn't "wealthy" when it came to raising taxes.

[pnwmom]

154. His three homes alone are worth at least two million, plus he has savings. n/t

[Kurt V.]

12. K&R

[still_one]

13. No it isn't antisemetic, but what they are trying to imply is it is the same thing as when Rep Omar

was referring to Jews, when she equated it with "All about the Benjamins"

Nice try, but no cigar

[Susan Calvin]

15. They may not have meant it that way, but it could be interpreted that way.

What annoys me is that because he's become upper-middle-class, through his own hard work, they're implying that he's one of the 1%. I mean that metaphorically. I doubt $1 million gets you into the 1%, but when I say 1% I don't just mean amount of money you have , I mean how you got it and what you do with it.

Not to mention there are some amounts of money that are just obscene and that no human being could be said to have earned in the maximum lifespan of a human being. A lot of the 1%, the amount of money they have means the employees of their corporations are being screwed.

[Celerity]

18. 1 million USD total net worth does not even get you into the top TEN percent

see my post #14

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287132124#post4

[Susan Calvin]

78. Yep. They're making it something it's not. Makes me question their motives. nt

[SouthernProgressive]

91. Sanders has been a one percent earner for multiple year.

No reason to downplay the fact that multiple million dollar years is a lot.

That fact doesn’t change or excuse the nature of the images.

[Celerity]

99. The statement 'Bernie Sanders is now in the wealthiest 1% of Americans' is simply not true.

The past 3 years, yes, he was in the top 1% of earners (before that he was not), but in terms of total wealth, he is not even close, as it takes over 10 million dollars in net worth to qualify. He is atm (we shall see how many more books he writes) around 8 million dollars short. His income in 2018 dropped by 50% as well, down to 566,000 dollars. I supposed he will need write a lot more books to have any chance to make the 1% in terms of net wealth.

I do not want Bernie to run for POTUS, I think he is a divisive presence, but I also care about accuracy and perception, and for some, it seems to me, want to try to paint him as some sort of hypocritical (now) part of the US economic controller class (which is what most all his critiques are against) in order to discredit his economic policies. That is simply not accurate.

Bernie is powerful, but certainly that does not come from his accumulated wealth. If he liquidated all his assets (including selling his his Washington condo and his original house, plus the 575,000 dollar summer home he bought recently), then after taxes he would probably have around half (or maybe a little more, I assume his 2 older properties have went up in value, especially the condo, although his 2 million dollar figure does purport to show their present value) of what it would take to buy Biden's new 2.7 million dollar home. That is not a swipe at Biden in the least, it is simple showing a comparision. Biden may now well be over the 10 million net wealth threshold (his book deal was around 8 million USD) BUT Biden is also nowhere near the economic level of the controlling class. Just like Sanders, almost all his power is political. Sanders still is well below the average net wealth of Democratic Senators, even after his newly minted book income.

[lapucelle]

106. BS is a millionaire who owns three homes.

From the article

The Secret of Bernie’s Millions

How did he amass three houses and a net worth approaching at least $2 million? The surprisingly conventional middle-class climbing of a radical-sounding socialist.

snip============================

In the wake of his 2016 presidential run, the most lucrative thing he’s ever done, the 77-year-old self-described democratic socialist is a three-home-owning millionaire with a net worth approaching at least $2 million, taking into account his publicly outlined assets and liabilities along with the real estate he owns outright. In a strict, bottom-line sense,

Sanders has become one of those rich people against whom he has so unrelentingly railed. The champion of the underclass and castigator of “the 1 percent” has found himself in the socioeconomic penthouse of his rhetorical boogeymen. This development, seen mostly as the result of big bucks brought in by the slate of books he’s put out in the past few years, predictably has elicited snarky pokes, partisan jabs and charges of hypocrisy. The millionaire socialist!

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982

BS is a millionaire with three homes, but he's technically not part of the 1%, so it doesn't really matter?

[Celerity]

17. talk about whataboutism

[still_one]

25. No it isn't about what aboutism. Now When Diane Rhem on PBS pushes the dual citizenship lie on

Sanders, that was anti-Semitic, this isn’t. It is an anti-Sanders piece trying to imply that because Sanders has some money it runs counter to his political ideology, which is nonsense, since it isn’t even comparable to the money corruption he is talking about

[Celerity]

27. massive fail

[still_one]

28. Right back at ya

[Celerity]

31. I think Bernie would be a disaster as a the GE candidate for us, BUT

you ARE glomming onto a truly shit meme.

Pro tip:

Defending an article that uses a Jew and a digital money tree shot is NOT a good look, no matter how much you will try and protest and rationalise.

[still_one]

34. Did you even read the article? It is making the argument about Sanders battle with the "rich",

while he himself is rich,

"Sanders has a narrative arc that would form the backbone of the campaign story of almost any other candidate. But it’s more complicated for him. There’s never been anybody like Sanders in the modern political history of this country—somebody who made a career out of haranguing millionaires … and who is now a millionaire himself. There is no set strategy for how to run for president as a democratic socialist with an expensive lakefront summer house. Americans generally don’t begrudge millionaires their millions—and, as Donald Trump has confirmed, the aura of wealth can serve as a useful means of self-promotion—but what to make of Sanders’ apparently conflicting narratives?"

You want to interpret that as an attack against his being Jewish, but the article is making it very clear what it is referring to, and from the author's perspective Sanders is being disingenuous.

This has nothing to do with his being Jewish

[Celerity]

40. addressed that comprehensively (and surely not to your liking) here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287132124#post36


also, keep on digging by defending that dodgy as fuck imagery contained in that article

You want to whinge on about Omar taking on a political entity that is one of the most powerful lobbies in our country (AIPAC and its members have spent hundreds of millions in political contributions and lobbying in just the past decade), but then try and call 'no foul' when it is a direct attack on an individual Jew and his so-called 'wealth'.


like I said

FAIL

[still_one]

43. Because that was mentioned in the OPs original link, with Rep Ocasio-Cortez.

Don't lecture me on anti-Semitism. I have been the recipient of it since I was kid

Have a nice day.

[sheshe2]

56. Please stop.

Still_one is a respected member of DU and has been here for 19 years. As he has stated above the article, which many seem not to have read, has to do with his newfound wealth that he has acquired in only three years, not the fact that he is Jewish.

while he himself is rich,

"Sanders has a narrative arc that would form the backbone of the campaign story of almost any other candidate. But it’s more complicated for him. There’s never been anybody like Sanders in the modern political history of this country—somebody who made a career out of haranguing millionaires … and who is now a millionaire himself. There is no set strategy for how to run for president as a democratic socialist with an expensive lakefront summer house. Americans generally don’t begrudge millionaires their millions—and, as Donald Trump has confirmed, the aura of wealth can serve as a useful means of self-promotion—but what to make of Sanders’ apparently conflicting narratives?"

You want to interpret that as an attack against his being Jewish, but the article is making it very clear what it is referring to, and from the author's perspective Sanders is being disingenuous.

This has nothing to do with his being Jewish

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287132124#post34

Fact is, you are attacking a Jewish man while trying to defend a Jewish man.

Still_one is a friend that I have known here for seven years and one of the most fair and balanced members of DU.


With all due respect, please stop.

[Celerity]

57. we worked it out

[sheshe2]

59. Good to hear. nt

[lapucelle]

112. You addressed the topic of BS's millions "comprehensively" by claiming "he's not that rich".

There is nothing dodgy about the imagery illustrating an article entitled

The Secret of Bernie’s Millions

How did he amass three houses and a net worth approaching at least $2 million? The surprisingly conventional middle-class climbing of a radical-sounding socialist.

Cortez is simply attempting to deflect the discussion from the personal wealth that BS has amassed and its impact on his carefully curated political brand. I wonder if she even read the article.

[sheshe2]

42. +1000

and for actually READING the article.

[still_one]

52. Thanks Sheshe. People seem to be offended by the graphic, and I guess taken by itself it could be

interpreted as associating Sanders being a Jew with money, However, the author of the article makes it pretty clear what he is referring to, and that is Sanders political ideology against "millionaires", while he himself is one.

The reason why I cynically suspect they are pushing this is because in the OP, there is a link which refers to Rep. Casio-Cortez saying that this is allowed because Sanders is a progressive, "so it is ok", but when Rep. Omar is accused of controversial statements, it isn't ok, leads me to believe that this is less about whether this is anti-Jewish or not, and more about politics

[sheshe2]

60. Out of context causes outrage.

*Sigh*

interpreted as associating Sanders being a Jew with money, However, the author of the article makes it pretty clear what he is referring to, and that is Sanders political ideology against "millionaires", while he himself is one.

Yes. He has also dropped that from his speeches now.

The reason why I cynically suspect they are pushing this is because in the OP, there is a link which refers to Rep. Casio-Cortez saying that this is allowed because Sanders is a progressive, "so it is ok", but when Rep. Omar is accused of controversial statements, it isn't ok, leads me to believe that this is less about whether this is anti-Jewish or not, and more about politics

[still_one]

66. Because of the graphic they are diverting attention from the actual article, and arguing this is

about him being Jewish, rather than debating the merits or demerits of the article itself.

As you mentioned, he has dropped the millionaire from his speeches

[melman]

68. The article is based on a bullshit premise

as you yourself said right here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=132211

[still_one]

69. I know what I said. I said the argument was weak at best, but the point I was making here

was that instead of debating the merits or demerits of the actual article, some prefer to divert attention from that, and instead say it was being anti-Jewish against Bernie, which I don't agree with that assessment

I wonder if Sanders will speak to this in the next few days, and whether he views the article as anti-Jewish, or if he views the article as miscasting him as one of the 1%.

If he comments, my guess would be the later

[lapucelle]

109. Did you just call someone "a Jew"?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

35. +1.n/t

[lapucelle]

108. No it isn't.

[backtoblue]

30. I respect you still_one, but I disagree on this

We live in a dangerous era of neonazi hate and propaganda.

These nazi groups will use such graphics in their own propaganda of hate.

I live in the Ozarks. I am fighting Holocaust deniers and nazi marches in my own town.

I can't condone this articles graphics.

[still_one]

45. I hear you, and understand what you are saying, but the article itself is referring to his political

ideology against milliionaires, and pointing out, from the authors perspective, that Sanders himself is a millionaire.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-2269

[backtoblue]

46. Yes, and coupled with the money tree is what I believe crosses the line.

[still_one]

48. When Diane Rehm tried to push the LIE that Sanders had dual citizenship with Israel in 2016, there

was no ambiguity there in my mind, that was anti-Jewish.

On this, I understand what you are saying, and I guess if the graphic wasn't there, then this wouldn't raise the question, or cross the line as you stated

[backtoblue]

50. Thank you for the conversation

Debate is healthy and at the end of the day, we stand for our democratic values.

I have a vested interest in the visual graphics because I've seen first hand how supremist groups use these graphics to further their agenda.

We will rise above hate through healthy discussion and empathy toward one another.

[still_one]

51. Absoltuely. Whether we agree or disagree here, it should help us all to understand different

perspectives.

I appreciate your points, and I am thinking about them


Thanks

[mucifer]

76. I don't understand why people want to ignore the graphic

[melman]

77. Yeah

People are saying you have to separate the article from the images.

Why? Politico didn't. They used those images. It's not separate at all.

[DallasNE]

24. This Is More anti-Semitic Than Omar

Rep Omar was critizing the Israeli lobbying group AIPAC. Here they are critizing a Jewish individual.

[still_one]

26. Interesting that you seem to be associating wealth with Jews. The piece is associating his politica

socialist ideology which is counter to wealth. It is a nonsensical argument in Sanders case though,

[Celerity]

36. his 'wealth' lololol, Bernie is not even remotely in the 1% (takes over 10 million to qualify)

see here >>>>>> https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287132124#post4



Now your candidate, hmmmm


‘Middle-Class Joe’ rakes in millions

The former VP on the brink of a likely presidential campaign has done quite well financially since leaving office in 2017.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/18/joe-biden-2020-money-wealth-1221934

“Middle-Class Joe” Biden has a $2.7 million (my add- that one home is far more than Bernie's current total net worth) vacation home. He charges more than $100,000 per speaking gig and has inked a book deal likely worth seven figures.

Since leaving office in 2017, the 76-year-old former vice president has watched his bank account swell as he continues to cultivate the image of a regular, Amtrak-riding guy. He’s repeatedly referred to himself as “Middle-Class Joe” on the campaign trail and in speaking engagements as he publicly mulls whether to run for president.

snip


Biden Books Go to Flatiron

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/book-deals/article/73268-biden-books-go-to-flatiron.html

Flatiron Books president and publisher Bob Miller has announced the acquisition of two non-fiction works by former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as a third book to be co-written with Dr. Jill Biden, his wife.

Sources say the deal is valued at $8 million; Flatiron and its parent company, Macmillan, would not comment. The Bidens were represented by CAA in the world rights deal, Flatiron Books' editorial director Colin Dickerman is set to edit.

snip



Joe Biden’s Paid Speech Buoyed the G.O.P. in Midwest Battleground

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/us/politics/biden-speech-fred-upton.html


Joseph R. Biden Jr. swept into Benton Harbor, Mich., three weeks before the November elections, in the midst of his quest to reclaim the Midwest for Democrats. He took the stage at Lake Michigan College as Representative Fred Upton, a long-serving Republican from the area, faced the toughest race of his career.

But Mr. Biden was not there to denounce Mr. Upton. Instead, he was collecting $200,000 from the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan to address a Republican-leaning audience, according to a speaking contract obtained by The New York Times and interviews with organizers. The group, a business-minded civic organization, is supported in part by an Upton family foundation.

Mr. Biden stunned Democrats and elated Republicans by praising Mr. Upton while the lawmaker looked on from the audience. Alluding to Mr. Upton’s support for a landmark medical-research law, Mr. Biden called him a champion in the fight against cancer — and “one of the finest guys I’ve ever worked with.”

Mr. Biden’s remarks, coming amid a wide-ranging discourse on American politics, quickly appeared in Republican advertising. The local Democratic Party pleaded with Mr. Biden to repair what it saw as a damaging error, to no avail. On Nov. 6, Mr. Upton defeated his Democratic challenger by four and a half percentage points.

snip



glass houses

[still_one]

37. I agree, it is a weak argument, but if you read the article, it is the authors view that Sanders is

pushing a socialist agenda, yet he has a lot of money. (the author's view, not mine"

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982

It is not about Sanders being Jewish, and that being associated with wealth, but that he attacks millionaires, when he himself is a millionaire

[Celerity]

47. I do not know your age, but Bernie's wealth is hardly what I would consider excessive

Let us say it is 2 million USD. Thats is less than one fifth of what it takes to even qualify at the bottom of the 1% in the US today.

54 (I picked 54 for a reason you will see below) years ago that translated out to about 125,000 USD, adjusted for inflation.

If I am worth only 2 million in constant dollars (ie. non inflation adjusted) when I turn Bernie's age (which is 54 years from now as I am 23) I will probably be FUCKED. The average property price in Mayfair (where I mostly grew up in London) is £2,733,330 (3.48m USD). That includes a tonne of bedsits, studios and TINY 1 BDRMS. The average house is £13,950,000 (17.73 million USD).

This whole Bernie as some newbie (and now hypocritical) oligarch meme is a joke, it really is.

[still_one]

49. I agree, which is why I said it was a weak argument at best.

[Celerity]

53. cool, and here is something that really puts all this into perspective, especially Bernie

Average net worth of Democratic Senators 2004-2012 (cannot find newer figures atm)

It dropped a lot in 2012 because Kerry and Kohl (over 400 million combined at the time 2011, now they are worth around a BILLION, hello stock market bubble) left

https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_and_Representatives

[still_one]

54. Now you are preaching to the choir. Thanks for the tables. A picture tells a thousand words

[Celerity]

55. like George Carlin said back in 2005, 'It's a big club and you ain't in it.'

[George II]

61. No it doesn't. It takes about $480K income to be in the 1% nationally, $320K in Vermont....

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/09/15/one-percenters-what-salary-takes-state/37741185/

[Celerity]

62. that's income per year, not total net worth

[George II]

64. I know. His income per year in the last three years:

$1,073,333 in 2016, https://s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs.taxnotes.com/2019/B_Sanders_2016.pdf

$1,150,891 in 2017, https://s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs.taxnotes.com/2019/B_Sanders_2017.pdf

561,293 in 2019 (first page missing!), https://s3.amazonaws.com/pdfs.taxnotes.com/2019/B_Sanders_2018.pdf

That is deep into the 1%, maybe even the 0.5%?

[Celerity]

65. his total net worth atm (around 2m USD) is not remotely at the threshold for being in the top 1%

I always stated I was dealing with net worth, go back and look at my posts

he may get there, but is nowhere near it yet

he won't make it via cashing in from being POTUS, so he will have to started writing more books

[George II]

67. The 1% isn't based on net worth, it's based on annual income.

[Celerity]

70. no, it ususally refers to the total wealth, and is certainly the way I mean it

examples (and there are thousands)

Incredible photos give a totally unexpected perspective into how the 1% lives

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-look-into-how-the-1-lives-2016-5?r=US&IR=T




Richest 1% will own more than all the rest by 2016

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016?cid=aff_affwd_donate_id78888&awc=5991_1558844697_d8a8d5a4291c0bbb09bb32944a1dbd3e





Many times the ultra rich report no income, but they are still ultra rich.



The very sentence itself is:

The wealthiest 1% in the nation.

Look at how Bernie himself critiques people.... 'millionaires and billionaires'. You can EASILY be a paper 'millionaire' and never get close to making a 1% level per annum income. Ask millions of Californians, NYC-dwellers, and Londoners who own houses and flats that have exploded in value since they bought them for pennies on the pound/dollar.


A person can have a couple big years of income and then it stops. Unless they are very good at leveraging it and extending it, they certainly will not be a 1% (let alone the 0.1%, which is were I like to draw the line) in terms of being a member of the 'ownership' class.


Look at the history of so many pro athletes. A few years making huge salaries and a signing bonus, the boom. It all ends.

It is crazy how many end up bankrupt.

[ehrnst]

97. From investopedia:

The top 5% of earners had average annual wages of $299,810 in 2017, according to the Social Security data. That’s more than five times the 2017 average wages of $53,474. Overall, this group lays claim to a 28.1% share of wages in the U.S.

To be certified as a one-percenter, you’ll need to earn $718,766. One-percenters have a 13.4% share of wages.

https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/

[aidbo]

84. Congresswoman Omar was not referring to Jews when she made her remark. She was referring to AIPAC

[Hortensis]

14. Deja vu -- 2016 type tactics -- all over again.

They're clearly worried that his ratings are dropping so early, even as they themselves remind people of what would best be hidden.

[pdsimdars]

19. I had heard he is the least wealthy Senator. Maybe the book he wrote got him some money.

God, those people are disgusting. They try to find any tiny thing they can to make a scandal out of. Disgusting. But I don't go to politico anyway so I can't really stop going there.
Anyway, these attacks just make my connection to him stronger. Go Bernie.
They're just afraid the country would go in a new direction if Bernie becomes president. . . you know, in the direction that sends some of the wealth we generate to working Americans and not have it all go to the upper 1%. That's why they are so afraid of him. Desperate people do desperate things.

[George II]

63. "these attacks just make my connection to him stronger. Go Bernie." So why are you "undecided"?

[dsc]

20. I am no Sanders fan

but yes, this is anti Semitic and it is ridiculous to deny that.

[still_one]

39. Did you read the article?

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-2269

[Doodley]

32. Did Politico use a money tree for Hillary Clinton?

Or Mitt Romney? Or George W. Bush? Or Donald "I'm very very rich" Trump? No. Of course it is anti-Semitic!

[still_one]

38. Obviously a lot of people here didn't even read the article. It has nothing to do with Sanders

being Jewish, but with his political ideology, where millionaires have corrupted everything, and how it runs counter to him now being a millionaire

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-millionaires-226982

"Sanders has a narrative arc that would form the backbone of the campaign story of almost any other candidate. But it’s more complicated for him. There’s never been anybody like Sanders in the modern political history of this country—somebody who made a career out of haranguing millionaires … and who is now a millionaire himself. There is no set strategy for how to run for president as a democratic socialist with an expensive lakefront summer house. Americans generally don’t begrudge millionaires their millions—and, as Donald Trump has confirmed, the aura of wealth can serve as a useful means of self-promotion—but what to make of Sanders’ apparently conflicting narratives?"

Some want to interpret that as an attack against his being Jewish, but the article is making it very clear what it is referring to, and from the author's perspective Sanders is being disingenuous.

This has nothing to do with his being Jewish

[Humanist_Activist]

72. It appears that neither the author of the article or you even know what Sanders position even is...

hence the false claim that he's being disingenuous. The give away for the author is the line, "Americans generally don't begrudge millionaires their millions..." Emphasis mine. A common refrain of the Capitalist, the socialist can't be poor, or else they are envious, nor can they own anything without being hypocrites.

[Doodley]

87. So, what is the maximum wealth that a socialist is allowed to have?

[ehrnst]

95. What is the maximum speaking fee someone supposed to make?(nt)

[Hortensis]

98. Is this a bash on Sanders, calling a Jewish man a socialist?

You really shouldn't. "Everyone" knows socialism is a Jewish plot for world domination. It's right up there with the goldfarb trope.

to make everyone know I'm not accusing Sanders myself, but big no to the antisemitic smear of association with socialism.

Btw, did you know that during the last big rise in left-wing antisemitism (I was a teen and young adult then), virtually every far-left movement in the nation moved from just hypocritical "anti-Zionism" to outright, blatant anti-semitism? (EXCEPT the democratic socialists, so I suspect that's why Sanders aligned with them. Jews had become distinctly unwelcome in other farther-left groups.)

Not surprising when you think about it. On the right, Jews were associated with the Antichrist, socialism, communism, stillborn babies, you name it. But on the revolutionary left, the evil, grasping "Goldfarb" Jew was characterized as behind all the evils of capitalism.

Btw, all this talk of left-wing antisemitism begs the question of who will be leading Sanders' current followers, and where, once he exits the stage? The next left-wing populist leader is unlikely to be Jewish, both because they're only 2% of the population and because we're in the midst of another era of left-wing antisemitism. Keeping in mind that populist groups must always have targets for their antagonisms...

[yardwork]

82. None of those candidates complained about "rich people."

I assume they're pointing out hypocrisy.

[ehrnst]

94. Dollar bills were thrown at Hillary Clinton.

By fans of Sanders.

[emmaverybo]

41. I guess it really is, whether or not one perceives the image as anti-Semitic, in the eye of the

beholder. I see no nexus in the image between Sanders and his ethnicity, faith, cultural heritage, or ancestry. It is an anti-Sanders image, reiterating a criticism already made about him which has not
been anti-Semitic in nature, as unfair as it is.

[Honeycombe8]

89. I agree it's in the eye of the beholder. Politico doesn't have a history of anti-Semitism.

So there's no hidden meaning there, as there would be in a RW site that caters to the extremist right. Someone could make that connection, I suppose. I don't think it would have occurred to me, and I don't think that was the intent, since the story is about his newly acquired wealth. I think the criticism of his newfound wealth is unfair. You don't have to be poor to want policies that help the poor or working class. FDR is an example of that.

[JudyM]

58. I felt the same thing when I read that article earlier. Sick in my stomach. This growing cancer

in our society is so depraved.

[comradebillyboy]

71. I didn't see any anti semitism. It just tweeked Bernie about becoming a

millionaire one percenter.

[NurseJackie]

73. Exactly! This whole thing is just a kneejerk "Bernie is a victim" response.

I didn't see any anti semitism. It just tweeked Bernie about becoming a millionaire one percenter.

Exactly! This whole thing is just a kneejerk "Bernie is a victim" response.

[BannonsLiver]

126. You didn't see it because it's not there

The whole thing is a desperate attempt by Sanders supporters to change the narrative.

[RandiFan1290]

75. Disgusting to see people try to defend this blatant antisemitism

But not at all surprised.

[NYMinute]

80. Hypocrisy has no religion

It is high time for Sanders and others to stop using antisemitism as an excuse for hypocrisy.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about the investigation into his finances.

[Kurt V.]

83. It's more than progressives reacting to this. Its the double standard exemplified. shameful.

[robbedvoter]

85. What was Burnie telling kids on that video about jews? Strange sex habits, money?

Then he went on about Blacks and Irish?
at 5:00 mark

I also seem to recall a town hall in 2016 where he was asked about his ethnicity and he said he is an immigrant from Poland. And now he's suddenly "the only Jewish candidate? To quote the Church Lady - "Isn't that convenient!"

[ehrnst]

93. I don't see it as anti-semitic, and my family is Jewish

I think that, like a fact check that doesn't find him spotless is a "hit piece," any commentary on Sanders's wealth is considered "unacceptable" by him and his supporters and "anti-semitic" is a way to rationalize that.

The piece is associating his political socialist ideology which is counter to wealth...

Notwithstanding Bernie is an athiest.

[Uncle Joe]

107. "Bernie is an atheist" where did you come up with that?

The piece by Politico; a political news website being sadly ignorant of what Democratic Socialism means, not to mention Bernie's actual message is no excuse for their anti-Semitic illustration.

[ehrnst]

124. "The piece is associating his political socialist ideology which is counter to wealth."

Perhaps you missed that part of the post you were replying to? Or the article in the OP?

Pointing out that irony is not "anti-semitic" any more than talking about Hillary Clinton's speaking fees was misogynist.




It's Bruce Seifer who called BS "cheap". Bruce Seifer says BS is "cheap" and Politico rejoins with "but not poor".

It's Seifer who made the claim on the record that BS is cheap. Politico reported it.

The money tree is a reference to the topic of the piece.


Commentary on Sanders that is less than adoring is not necessarily sinister and false in nature, despite a tendency of some to believe that.

[Uncle Joe]

133. The Politico piece was willfully ignorant on both democratic socialism in general, Bernie's message;

in particular and how they pertain to a person's inherent right to obtain personal wealth,( they don't argue against it,) and it was only made worse by Politico's anti-Semitic illustration.

One would think a political website would know that millionaires exist in democratic socialist and even socialist nations throughout the world, many if not most of whom are our allies.

[ehrnst]

136. No, it wasn't.

And, pointing out that irony is not "anti-semitic" any more than talking about Hillary Clinton's speaking fees was misogynist.

Some believe any commentary on Sanders that isn't praise is a "hit piece" and couldn't possibly have any validity.

[Uncle Joe]

139. Sounds like "whataboutism" to me.

I just pointed out why the willfully ignorant Politico piece had no validity, it's very premise was faulty.

[ehrnst]

140. No, it's called an analogy.

a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
noun
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

[Uncle Joe]

141. It was a hit piece because the premise was wrong as I pointed out up-thread

and the only explanation is willful ignorance.

[ehrnst]

142. No, it wasn't.

You're wrong, as I have explained.

[Uncle Joe]

143. Nothing in Bernie's message of democratic socialism argues against

obtaining personal wealth, Politico (and for that matter much of the rest of the media) ignores this fact.

[ehrnst]

144. You're veering off on a tangent.

And you are still wrong, nonetheless.

[Uncle Joe]

145. Other than the anti-Semitic illustration, that's the main point of the Politico piece

Bernie is a "hypocrite" because he became wealthy while espousing the ideology that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes and should not have such predominant control over the peoples' economic and political lives.

Bernie criticizes our dysfunctional system, rightfully so and is more than willing to raises taxes on himself and for this Politico labels him a hypocrite.

Politico's premise was/is wrong Bernie's message does not argue against obtaining personal wealth and they nor you have an argument against it other than using ridiculous false memes.

[ehrnst]

146. Again, you missed the point of the piece.

[Uncle Joe]

147. That's because the piece was pointless other than to trash Bernie for no good reason.

[ehrnst]

148. As I said.....

[Uncle Joe]

149. Since you have no rebuttal to my points, I'm heading out to dinner.

Have a good night.

[ehrnst]

150. I have rebutted your points.

You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

I don't get dragged off onto tangents, and that appears to be frustrating to you.

Have a good night.

[melman]

114. "Notwithstanding Bernie is an athiest. "

So it can't be Anti-Semitism if the target is a non-religious person? Wow.

[ehrnst]

125. "The piece is associating his political socialist ideology which is counter to wealth."

Perhaps you missed that part of the post you were replying to? Or the article in the OP? Wow.

Pointing out that irony is not "anti-semitic" any more than talk of Hillary's speaking fees was "misogynist."



It's Bruce Seifer who called BS "cheap". Bruce Seifer says BS is "cheap" and Politico rejoins with "but not poor".

It's Seifer who made the claim on the record that BS is cheap. Politico reported it.

The money tree is a reference to the topic of the piece.

Commentary on Sanders that is less than adoring is not necessarily sinister and false in nature, despite a tendency of some to believe that.

[melman]

127. So what's all that have to do

with him being an alleged atheist?



What's the relevance there?

[ehrnst]

128. Nothing. What does your reply have to do with my post?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=133216

"The piece is associating his political socialist ideology which is counter to wealth."

Perhaps you missed that part of the post you were replying to? Or the article in the OP? Wow.

Pointing out that irony is not "anti-semitic" any more than talk of Hillary's speaking fees was "misogynist."



It's Bruce Seifer who called BS "cheap". Bruce Seifer says BS is "cheap" and Politico rejoins with "but not poor".

It's Seifer who made the claim on the record that BS is cheap. Politico reported it.

The money tree is a reference to the topic of the piece.

Commentary on Sanders that is less than adoring is not necessarily sinister and false in nature, despite a tendency of some to believe that.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about the investigation into his finances.

[melman]

131. "Nothing"

Okay. So why did you mention it?

[ehrnst]

132. Are you going to address the points in my response about his finances?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=133216

Nothing?

[melman]

134. Are you going to explain the relevance of the alleged atheism?

[ehrnst]

135. Nothing?

[melman]

137. So that's a definite no

Okay.

[ehrnst]

138. You have no response whatsoever, I see.

Ok.

Talk of his finances is forbidden. Got it.

[ehrnst]

130. Was talk of Hillary's speaking fees "misogynist?"

[pnwmom]

153. Not anti-Semitic. And based on his three homes, he's worth at least 2 million, not 1. n/t

[tymorial]

156. Its not antisemitic.