Talk:Bernie Sanders

Consistency
I don't see how you can say that Sanders is any more consistent than any other politician after reading through the sections on policy positions. Sure, he's consistent on some things, but not on everything (gun control, military, foreign policy, financial regulation). To some extent, this is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. what issue(s) is important to a particular voter, but to somehow think that Sanders is more consistent than the average politician doesn't make any sense after what appears previously on this page. Bongolian (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That last sentence is marketing-speak: (thanks, Tad Devine!). We're not here to promote Sanders but to evaluate him. Here's another politician who used authenticity for marketing: I'm removing the sentence again. If you think it is demonstrably true, you need independent references for it. Bongolian (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For future reference, in case anyone wants to know, this is the sentence I deleted, "Authenticity and consistency remain the driving engines of his rising popularity." Bongolian (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Let's consider the topics you mention one by one, using the information available here. He seems pretty consistent on gun control. He is pro-gun, but not to the extent of compromising public safety. On military matters, he is a moderate. He opposes overseas involvement when such can be avoided and supports investing in new capabilities. He is advocating for "peace through strength", although he may not describe his stance that way. He is against financial deregulation; he is no more a fan of letting the banks do whatever they want than Elizabeth Warren is. He is pretty consistent to me. Nerd (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As for authenticity, you can watch him appearing on various comedy shows and see how bad he is at acting. Nerd (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a bad actor is hardly a good indicator of authenticity. Ed Woods Jr. for president? But is he really authentic or just someone inauthentic playing a bad actor? There are indicators that Sanders' inconsistencies reveal his inauthenticity. If he's authentic, shouldn't his views apply universally? He claimed that he'd probably have a different view on gun control if he represented Brooklyn rather than Vermont; how is that authentic? How could Sanders' be consistent on gun control when the NRA went from enthusiastically supporting him in 1990 to currently giving him a D- rating? How is Sanders' support of the F-35 authentic or consistent other than it being more pork for Vermont? Did you actually read the section on "Expensive weaponry"? It's hard to figure out from that what Sanders authentic/consistent position is other than more pork for Vermont is good. Bongolian (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Being a (hilariously) bad actor can indicate authenticity because if he is saying something he does not really believe in or does not really want to say, you will know right away. Yes, I read the "Expensive weaponry" section; in fact, I helped write it. The F-35 not only significantly expands U.S. military capabilities but also creates plenty of jobs. Furthermore, the fact that many U.S. allies are purchasing it improves operational compatibility and logistics. A number of allies even manufacture their own weapons that could be fitted on the F-35, such as the Naval Strike Missile from Norway, known as the Joint Strike Missile when fitted aboard the multirole stealth fighter. The NRA has changed over the years, from what I have gathered. They used to care more about public safety than they do now; at present, they are no more than a bunch of ideologues. Sanders is fairly consistent. He supports gun ownership, but not at the expense of public safety. Nerd (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for cleaning up
We might want to merge the "A look ahead" section with the ones above, especially "Policy positions," regardless of whether or not Sanders decides to run for President in 2020, in which case an entire new section would have to be dedicated to that endeavor. Nerd (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be an accomplishments section because that seems to be the main criticism of Bernie from Democrats, that he hasn't accomplished much despite being in the Senate for a long time (e.g. bills that he authored and passed the Senate). What do you think, ? Bongolian (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to include the bills he authored and helped pass in the section on his political views. Actions speak louder than words. Show don't tell. That is, unless there is something exceptional that took place or perhaps something outside of politics. Nerd (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Puff piece
I've brought this to your attention before, and you've basically blown me off about it. Huge swaths of this page read like a puff piece written only by a supporter. Example: "Even though his racial justice reforms are progressive…" then cite not one but two Bernie campaign sites as "evidence". Come on, you've done good work elsewhere on RW, Nerd, but you should realize that you're not looking at this page critically like you should be and the page is suffering from your lack of perspective. Having views on things, as Bernie has in abundance is not the same as accomplishments, which he does not have in abundance. There are some good things to say about Bernie, but there is a severe lack of critical perspective on this page. Bongolian (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me be absolutely clear. Even though I am a major contributor to this article, I am far from being the only one. Feel free to rewrite anything that sounds biased. I will admit that I have raised my standards within the last two years or so. Let me put it this way: I am not particularly proud of my earliest "contributions" to RW. (I do not have sock puppets, in case you think the recent revert was done by me.)
 * Go ahead with your proposal to have a section on accomplishments. Let's see how large or small it gets. Nerd (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't accusing you having socks, not that it matters. My last addition was reverted by someone else. I'm not sure that I care enough to go through the whole article if it's going to be an uphill battle. Bongolian (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't stop you, as long as changes are factually accurate and professionally written. I'll even support you if I have the time and interest. Nerd (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, if we tried to focus on missional stuff, we'd not get much. They guy has notably extreme positions politically, but they aren't outlandish in the sense of being based on conspiracies, falsified history, or pseudoscience, and he's not authoritarian in any meaningful way.  There aren't nearly as many crazy conspiracy theories about him as Clinton, or even AOC.  Some of his supporters go conspiratorial on the questionable activities of the DNC in 2016, which I guess is on mission.  But to un-puff it, in an on-mission way, would not leave much content.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that necessarily a bad thing? Keeping the article somewhat trim leaves it easier to navigate in the future. Remember how we had to spin at least two articles off of Trump and it's still a bloated mess? With a renewed Sanders campaign, do we want that happening AGAIN? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be lying if I said I had a strong opinion about cutting to nothing. How's it compare to Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, I guess?  Waiting until I finish this post to find out cause clicking links is easy.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of my changes today,. I'd support cutting the political views section way down, & ; it's definitely in TLDR territory given his ineffectiveness as a Senator in my view. Bongolian (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Now, that is a weird sentiment. "I don't personally feel he's effective as a senator therefor article should be shorter".  It makes no sense.  No correlation.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The changes suit me just fine. I do not support trimming the article just because the Senator has not been particularly successful as a legislator, however. We can talk about his relative lack of success and political views at the same time. Nerd (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer my own previous post, it does seem like Harris or Biden are good benchmarks for size. If we cut to a little longer than them, it could be deemed "not fluff".  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , That was not my personal view that Sanders has been ineffective. That was from a non-partisan source, Govtrack.us. Does it make sense to devote more than 10 times as much text to Sander's not-very-missional views vs. the text for what he's actually done, for someone who is the least effective serving Senator? Bongolian (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I really do not understand the point you're trying to make. Why is that a priority any more than big lists of policy positions?  Also, "effetiveness" is by its nature not a objective measure.  It's inherently subjective, even if you craft a metric, the metric you choose reflects a great deal about what kinds of effects you desire.  I'm not against mentioning it, but I question its validity as a critically important thing to cover.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

BERNIE!! BERNIE!! BERNIE!! — Oxyaena   Harass  17:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Deeds, not words." — Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (Actions speak louder than words). Bongolian (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Arbitrarily classified results of deeds based on whether a bunch of other politicians are also good people, not words" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious of sources used to criticize Bernie under 'Military Spending' section.
Under the 'Military Spending' section, there is a paragraph criticizing Bernie for supporting the military-industrial complex specifically with the F-35.

However, even though Bernie Sanders has frequently pointed out that Hillary Clinton is more hawkish than he is, he has a much more complex history with the military-industrial complex than it at first appears. Most notably, he is supporting the development of the F-35 fifth generation fighter jet which costs $1.2 trillion. Vermont is part of the production chain.[106] During his 2012 reelection campaign, Sanders ran against a Republican who opposed the F-35 as a waste of resources. Sanders was all for it.[107] When it has come time to choose between defense jobs and a dovish defense policy, Sanders has consistently chosen to stand with the arms-makers rather than the peace activists. In 1985, for example, protesters massed at the General Electric plant in Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders was serving as mayor. They were protesting the fact that the plant was manufacturing Gatling guns to fight socialists in Central America. Bernie had the cops go in and arrest the protesters.[107]

1. Validity of claims made in the paragraph

The claims being made in the first three sentences of the aforementioned paragraph are twofold. 1: Bernie supported the F-35. 2: Vermont is part of the production chain. Searching for 'Vermont' on the wikipedia page for F-35 mentions the first F-35s are being stationed at the Vermont Air National Guard base, Burlington. This would actually be at the end of the production chain. Saying Vermont is part of the production chain is misleading because it implies someone is profiting off Bernie Sanders supporting the F-35 program by helping produce it. The Air National Guard in Vermont do not get paid for receiving F-35s. Military pay is salaried, so they get paid for showing up to work. Furthermore, Bernie Sanders wasn't the one who made that decision. The U.S. Airforce did.

Maj. Gen. Steven Cray, Adjutant General of the Vermont National Guard announced that the United States Air Force has selected the 158th Fighter Wing in Burlington, Vt., as the first F35A Air National Guard Base.

The second part is whether Bernie supports the F-35 program. In an interview with NBC, Bernie said that the F-35 had huge cost overruns, the process and amount of money spent are legitimate concerns, but right now the F-35 is built and if it doesn't come to Vermont it will just go to another community. In the same source from the Daily Beast, according to a 2014 Q&A in New Hampshire Bernie said,

“In very clever ways, the military-industrial complex puts plants all over the country, so that if people try to cut back on our weapons system what they’re saying is you’re going to be losing jobs in that area,”

So what Bernie is actually worried about is losing jobs. The logic is that the planes are already built and they have to go somewhere, and if they don't go to Vermont people will lose jobs, so we should bring the F-35s to Vermont so people don't lose jobs. This doesn't mean Bernie is in bed with the military-industrial complex.

The source (Daily Beast article) claims that Bernie persuaded Lockheed Martin to place a research center in Burlington (the Air National Guard Base) and managed to get 18 F-35s for the base while never stating how he did this, why, or listing a source, except for Newsweek. The article references its own website eight times to support its statements and also references Newsweek, but according to their history, the Daily Beast and Newsweek were actually one company for three years. So can Newsweek really be considered a reliable source for The Daily Beast?

The other source listed in those first two paragraphs is... Newsweek, which I just mentioned had major ties to The Daily Beast which titled its article, 'Bernie Sanders Loves This $1 Trillion War Machine' but it actually seems he's more concerned about Vermont jobs. The article states that Bernie 'backed' the F-35 warplane, and assigned them to the Vermont Air National Guard. We know that the Air Force were the ones who assigned them, and I haven't seen evidence of Bernie coming out in support of the F-35 program, just that he would rather have the already built ones stationed in Vermont because of jobs. The article does not list any sources at all to back up its claims.

Next we need to evaluate the claim that Bernie had the cops arrest the protesters in 1985. This article has only one reference and its referencing Bernie announcing his presidential campaign. This event is also talked about back in the Daily Beast article by some guy named Condon who talked to the newspaper. A second hand source of information from some random dude isn't conclusive evidence that this event actually happened.

2. Text is just copy/pasted from the Daily Beast Article

Finally something of note is that the wording in the aforementioned paragraph looks like it was directly taken from The Daily Beast article.

Paragraph: Bernie Sanders has frequently pointed out that Hillary Clinton is more hawkish than he is

Daily Beast: Sanders has made his opposition to Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness a cornerstone of his campaign.

Paragraph: he has a much more complex history with the military-industrial complex than it at first appears

Daily Beast: he has a more complex history with the military-industrial complex

Paragraph: Most notably, he is supporting the development of the F-35 fifth generation fighter jet which costs $1.2 trillion

Daily Beast: Most notably, he’s supported a $1.2 trillion stealth fighter

Paragraph: During his 2012 reelection campaign, Sanders ran against a Republican who opposed the F-35 as a waste of resources. Sanders was all for it.

Daily Beast: During his 2012 reelection campaign, Sanders ran against a Republican who opposed the F-35 as a waste of resources. Sanders was all for it.

Paragraph: When it has come time to choose between defense jobs and a dovish defense policy, Sanders has consistently chosen to stand with the arms-makers rather than the peace activists.

Daily Beast: When it has come time to choose between defense jobs and a dovish defense policy, Sanders has consistently chosen to stand with the arms-makers rather than the peaceniks

Paragraph: In 1985, for example, protesters massed at the General Electric plant in Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders was serving as mayor. They were protesting the fact that the plant was manufacturing Gatling guns to fight socialists in Central America.

Daily Beast: In 1985, for example, protesters massed at the General Electric plant in Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders was serving as mayor. They were protesting the fact that the plant was manufacturing Gatling guns to fight socialists in Central America.

Paragraph: Bernie, finally got cops to go in and arrest the protesters

Daily Beast: Bernie, finally got cops to go in and arrest the protesters

While the Rational Wiki article about Plagiarism says its about giving credit, the Daily Beast's own website says its,

lifting someone else's words and passing them off as your own — and factual fabrication are never permitted.

While credit was indeed given in the form of references, the words written were pretty much word-for-word and were not put in quotes. It certainly seems to be the case that someone else's words (the Daily Beast's words) were lifted and passed off as someone else's.

3. Questioning the trust-worthiness of the Daily Beast as a source

As aforementioned, the Daily Beast and Newsweek were actually the same company during a merger that lasted for three years. The Daily Beasts' code of ethics and standards states that their, 'goal is to tell the truth' and that, 'To that end, journalists must strive to hold themselves to high ethical standards: aiming for honesty, fairness and accuracy while avoiding conflicts of interest.'

However, their executive editor, Noah Shachtman stated that,

What we did is really put an emphasis on scoop, scoop, scoop...That has really combined for what I think is the best read on the net.

In case you didn't know, a 'scoop' is news reported by a journalist or organization of 'of exceptional originality, importance, surprise, excitement, or secrecy.'

Now that's what I call 'honesty, fairness and accuracy while avoiding conflicts of interest'.

When first looking into this I did a quick search on RationalWiki for anything on The Daily Beast. I found an article from this website titled Nick Gillespie that said he wrote for The Daily Beast and described him as such,

that he will go to any length to fight the dreaded socialism

Wait a minute, Bernie Sanders is a socialist. Hmmm... Their wikipedia page describes them as non-partisan and that they have reporters from both the right and the left. It's possible that the contributor could have some oppositional bias.

The person who wrote the the Daily Beast article claiming that Bernie supported the F-35s is Tim Mak. If you go to his twitter and scroll down you'll see he covers the NRA a lot. I can't tell if he's conservative or not because he hasn't given many opinions that could help me identify his political leanings, and therefore a bias. However, I did find this tweet, where he says that Bernie and his staff have historically been quite confrontational with the press 'in his experience'. That's an opinion that is anti-Bernie. So we atleast have some anti-Bernie bias. We have some small incentive for false reporting.

4. Summary

It is clear that the sources listed that describe Bernie Sanders supporting F-35s, that the F-35 production is in Vermont, and that Bernie called in the cops to arrest the protesters are not reliable sources. The sources I have provided include two interviews where Bernie Sanders says via word of mouth he is against the F-35 program and that he is actually in favor of keeping Vermont jobs. The sources listed for this paragraph are both from what once was the same company, and as an organization their executive editor has stated a conflict of interest with his company's code of ethics and standards, and the writer of the article has expressed anti-Bernie sentiments. Therefore this article appears politically and commercially motivated rather than truthfully motivated, and that the statements made in the aforementioned paragraph supported by these article(s) are more than likely not true.

The whole Military spending section along with this criticism didn't show up until an edit was made by on Jan 29, 2019 at 19:56 by User:Nerd. At 19:48, also on Jan 29, 2019 it's not there so that confirms it. I'm not sure if that's relevant but it's his/her edit so it might be if I need to talk to him/her about this.

5. Recommended course of action

I would recommend full-on deletion of this paragraph. It would not seem that Bernie, 'has a much more complex history with the military-industrial complex than it at first appears'.  Cumulus  Discuss  15:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sucky aspects of this page
One reason that this page sucks is that there are unsubstantiated statements written by Bernie cheerleaders. This is certainly one of them: The explosive repudiation of this rightward trend caused the Bernie movement to explode in 2016 and Sanders's positions to zoom into mass popularity, a socio-political reality reflected in recent elections. So - not an "establishment" politician... It's not even grammatical and wants to keep it. Oxyaena, why don't you write something in Essayspace on Bernie? , we've been down this road before in the above discussion. What do you think? Bongolian (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue with that paragraph is one of clarification, not substantiation. Is Bernie's rise a response to the systemic failure of neoliberalism? Arguably yes. — Oxyaena Harass  17:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many case studies and actual studies backing up that neoliberalism worldwide has been declining to political extremism - or more accurately, what is considered extremism in a country's overton window - as people look to alternative solutions to problems neoliberalism couldn't fix. Bernie, along with AOC, have both been figureheads of this movement in the United States specifically. I back Oxy on this. Minish (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can make a statement to the effect that Bernie is popular, but the one that is there now is hype, and it is not supported by the citation. Someone can rewrite the statement so that the citation supports it, otherwise it should be deleted. Bongolian (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No that's dumb. It's trivial to find secondary sources that clearly deliniate this idea.  Too damn easy.  And this isn't wikiepdia.  Obviously true statements built from original synthesis aren't going to destroy the wiki.  Come on Bongolian.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Except many of those studies refer (in pretty unflattering terms) to the subsequent rise of populist / nationalist movements, and have zero interest in fapping over Bernie. +1 for essayspace. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And FFS, at least correct the grammar. This is supposed to be a Silver-level article. How would this read if it were on our Trump page, "The explosive repudiation of this leftward trend caused the MAGA movement to explode in 2016 and Trump's positions to zoom into mass popularity, a socio-political reality reflected in recent elections."? Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)