Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 1 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Reasons[edit]

Any more reasons why his name sounds vaguely familiar to me, other than sharing a first name with Bernie Madoff? Is he famous for something, or?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, although it does sound like Barry Sanders. PacWalker 18:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fans[edit]

I don't see how his fans tells us anything about him. His fans aren't peddling gold standard and Federal Reserve conspiracies. They aren't Objectivist or neo-Confederates either. Also hating a political ad doesn't seem unreasonable since it is meant to smear a candidate no matter how true its claim is.--Owlman (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

How is the town hall incident relevant?[edit]

There is one low quality youtube video of it (usually the definition of bad source over here) he got yelled at and calmly (well as calmly as you are when you get yelled at over such an issue) explained his moderately pro-Zionist position, which btw is the definition of main stream in the USA. Right now it is almost a third of the body of the article, where one sentence should suffice: Bernie Sanders is moderately pro-Zionist and supports the two state solution in the Israel-Palestine mess. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

GMO comment[edit]

Can anyone tell me why informing customers is a bad thing? If GMOs are so beneficial to everyone, wouldn't it be a good thing to inform customers of the superior product? 91.52.88.94 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They aren't "beneficial to everyone" per se. They're good for crop yields, the environment, and some questions in public health. The problem the wiki broadly has is that the label is that is being pushed is a broadly unscientific distinction(transgenic versus cisgenic modification doesn't actually MEAN anything). Imagine a requirement to label crops that were planted in brown soil. There's no reason to do it, the distinction is arbitrary, but it calls attention to it in a way that's beneficial to those planting in other soils.
Generally, that kind of thing isn't a good idea, and labeling laws should be justified(like the way nutrition facts are justified because they help people make healthier choices). I wouldn't object to things being labeled, but mandating it in law is short-sighted and panders to a crowd that doesn't understand the issue. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a yes no question to more complicated issues.
  1. All crops have some level of mutation to their current form. What level of manipulation from the original, or crossbred form, makes something a GMO?
  2. Is manipulation to give rice vitamin A, saving millions of malnourished people in developing countries, just as bad as making a crop resistant to pesticides so farmers use more? Does it matter where the genes came from?
  3. Should we label things in foods that are generally accepted as safe and have yet to be proven to actually cause harm? So far "studies" that show harm would be laughed out of a 3rd grade science fair, let alone be taken as legitimate anything. Di-hydrogen monoxide causes thousands of deaths every year and we are not warned if it's in our food.
  4. There are labels that things do not contain GMOs backed by certification agencies. Do we really need labels for the converse?
-EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
All these theoretical observations are important and probably true, but being as far to the left (in US terms) as Bernie and being against GMO labeling is political suicide and would be used as a wedge issue, especially in Iowa (King Corn) or the general election. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, if the majority of people want something, that is democracy. While figuring out how to do the labels is important, denying people labels they want seems wrong too. Plus, one could make the argument that the important factor isn't that they're genetically modified at all. The important factor is informing people that they are, because the actual evil of companies like Monsanto is their business practices are absolutely atrocious. GMOs aren't the issue, unchecked corporate greed is. It just so happens that an "Unchecked Corporate Greed" label not only would be unconstitutional, but also apply to approximately all products in America. Or in other words, loophole abuse to get one over on a giant corporation screwing people over, and that is something we should all believe in. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll just go ahead and preemptively Godwin: if the majority of people want to kill Jews, that is democracy. Why do you hate democracy? And anyway, what is so especially evil, exactly, about Monsanto's business practices (or those of other companies that produce GMOs)? Actual facts please, not the falsehoods that get constantly regurgitated. I'll just go ahead and point out that my position is not "Monsanto has never done anything the least bit shady", but rather "Monsanto is not particularly malevolent as far as corporations go, which includes many corporations that are viewed favorably in GMO-phobic circles". It's disingenuous to argue that mandatory GMO labeling is about making sure everyone is well-informed when the vast majority of people supporting it do so because they think GMO = evil poison and they want the labels on there as scarlet letters. The thing is I don't care that much about GMO labeling per se, but I do hate the anti-science sentiment that's largely behind it. And I'm still voting for Bernie despite his pandering on this issue, because I still view his positions as net positive. --Ymir (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Complaining about "evil corporations" is a good way of showing that you don't understand capitalism. In capitalism the only thing that counts is profit. And if you don't make enough of a profit, you will be taken over or bought up by a competitor. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Or, it shows an understanding that capitalism, at its core, promotes ideas and actions that would be considered "evil" amongst the typical morality systems used by those on the left. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

To the left of Che Guevara?[edit]

According to one edit summary he is. And well indeed he is: On the subject of rock music at least. The Argentinian asthmatic was not too fond of the young people with their jammin' and their shrammin' and their rockin' and rollin' and honky-tonkin'. It distracted them too much from the revolución... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

And BTW, he wasn't too fond of the said people being fond of someone with the same set of genitals as they.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
If you like vaguely leftist Latin American guerrilleros who died a tragic death at a rather young age, how about Augusto César SandinoWikipedia instead? Heck his face even looks pretty on T-shirts. Plus he gets bonus points for fighting the US.... and winning! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Some have accused [him] of being a Zionist"[edit]

I don't know whether we should put it like that. It currently sounds as if we were saying Zionism is somehow a bad thing... Furthermore, "some" is a weasel word that Wikipedia tells people to avoid. Pizzameister (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If within a week from now I hear no reason why not, I will change the article accordingly. Pizzameister (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What happened in Serbia/Kosovo in 1999[edit]

I have removed the claim that there was a genocide against Albanians in 1999. If you have credible sources that suggest there was, please argue your case here before we can reinsert this with a source. As for now we don't have a smoking gun. Pizzameister (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by Typhoon[edit]

Have a look - what do you say? Pizzameister (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

They are dumb because the whole section is useless; every candidate is going to have racist, sexist, or homophobic supporters. I guarantee you there were racists supporting Hillary Clinton in 2008 especially after her racially charged comments about Obama, but we shouldn't hold those supporters against them unless they openly embrace and encourage their supporters views or conspiracies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 01:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Every candidate has dumb supporters, but only Sanders' have been repeatedly compared to Ron Paul's, what with their obsessive devotion, overwhelming presence on the internet that doesn't manifest in real life and refusal to admit that he will most certainly lose. Oh, and let's not forget that they're almost all white and young. If the Ron Paul article gets a mention of his fanbase, the Sanders should have one too, especially since they've been a topic of many news sites now. Typhoon (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon Why does it matter if his supporters "accept that there candidate will likely lose"; that is by far the dumbest thing I have read. The reason Ron Paul supporters are mentioned is because Ron Paul endorsed goldbuggery and social conservative views; we already have mentioned that some of Sanders's supporters may have neo-reactionary views. The media keeps reporting on "Bernie-Bros" because the media is prone to sensationalism and this was a common campaign tactic Clinton used in 2008 against Obama. I mean should we mention Albright's and Steinham's anti-feminist comments because they are fervent supporters of her; should we mention how Hillary supporters can't accept her race-baiting and right-leaning views or that she may be Obama'd again. @StickySock From what I have read most African American leaders supported the neo-liberal reforms and social conservative values in order to save the 'morality' of their communities. The Clinton's also opened up many of the White House's positions to African Americans so many of the older generation AAs tend to put the Clinton's up there with Jesse Jackson. AA women especially accept her since she would break the highest glass ceiling in the US.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont see why we shouldnt mention supporters with dodgy views. We do it with trump. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with pointing out some more dodgy supporters, but it has little relevance to the merit of the candidate themself. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree there is little relevance to the candidate. These anonymous people posting online comments critical of Clinton could be Republicans for all I know. It serves their purposes for Bernie to continue to challenge her. Read-Write (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason we mention Trump's supporters is that he supports their views and endorses their conspiracies; just like Ron Paul, Trump grows from his supporters paranoia, ignorance, and racist/sexist views. And, I will reiterate again, we already mention that he may be endorsed by neo-reactionaries, but every candidate is endorsed by people who may be racist, sexist, or homophobic.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeehaw, conspiracy time!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well maybe Daivd Duke is a deep cover liberal? Who knows... Pizzameister (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense, he is a reptiloid!!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 22:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There needs to be more and stronger references for that edit to stick. It also needs some comparison to Sanders' positions; after all the article is about him and in a year this primary contest will be a distant memory. Tielec01 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
True, who remembers the 2008 primary campaign of President Obama? The only notable primary campaigns are 2000 push poll black ababy and 2004 Dean scream. And they both lost... Pizzameister (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanders Clinton and black people[edit]

Why Sanders is failing with black voters isn't a mystery, Owlman. Typhoon (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Well he did much better with Michigan's black voters than with those of the South. And of course black Democrats tend to be more conservative than white Democrats... Pizzameister (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OMG he criticized Sanders' fans! GET HIM! Typhoon (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok I'm curious and/or stupid. Why is Bernie doing so poorly with black people? Clinton increased the number of black people behind bars more than any other president. So why? StickySock (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Because thus far the only blacks to vote were Southerners. The first Northern state with a significant African American population to vote went to Sanders with the black vote breaking roughly 65-35 for Clinton instead of the earlier routs of Sanders among southern Blacks... Pizzameister (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Massachussettes is a southern state? Wow you learn something new every day! StickySock (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
8.8% Blacks (according to Wikipedia) is not enough to make a statistically relevant statement about them. Pizzameister (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
there is something deeply dehumanising about this conversation. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Would you say the same if we had the same conversation about a nomination race in the South African opposition and instead of blacks we were talking about whites? Pizzameister (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
if you are reducing an entire group of people to a statistic and abstract concepts, then yes, you have stopped talking about human beings. This is why politicians of all stripes are dreadful people. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
So examining the voting patterns of certain groups of people is evil? Statistics is evil? What the fuck??--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC) 22:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
who said anything about evil. It is, as i said, dehumanising. Its so far removed from the people being discussed thst it becomes all they are - statistics to be used by people with no connection to and no underständing of the lives being led. It just leaves me cold. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You are not cut out for science or medicine then. What do you think medical trials are? CorruptUser (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
my lack of interest and low intelligence is why i am not cut out for science. Though it is not remotely similar. Unless you are saying medical trials are conducted by folk claiming to speak for and to understand the 'common man'. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
quite apart from the fact that those conducting medical trials need to be very aware of the dehumanising effects of seeing everything in terms of raw data less there research takes some deeply unethical turns AMassiveGay (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Look. Statistical analysis of election results is useful. It can even help detect fraud. For example if you have a Democrat win Wyoming and West Virginia in the general yet lose California, something is decidedly off. And I think there is not much of a difference in analyzing how the white vote, the black vote, the liberal vote, the independent vote and so on broke... Pizzameister (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
it doesnt tell you why though, which you cannot fathom if people are seen as nothing more than a source of votes and whose hopes and fears are boiled down to abstract concepts with little nuance or deprh. Its why so few people vote or are engaged with politics and why debate is dominated by zealots. Its insidious. Look how polarised US politics is. Neither side sees the other as people but as ideologies that need to be crushed. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
and you are very much mistaken if you think all i am talking about is statistics. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

He did much better in Michigan, by which Avenger Pizzameister means he got crushed after a large majority voted for Clinton. Avenger's Pizzameister's insistence to constantly invoke the "Confederacy" when talking about black southern voters (aka the group that is AGAINST it) is disturbing and an example of Berniebros' inability to understand why black people everywhere in the US prefer Clinton to Sanders. Typhoon (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

And God?[edit]

So what's his position on religion?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

He said he's proud to be Jewish in a recent debate Pizzameister (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I wonder how electable a jewish guy will be in a country where which church the president goes to issomething of national importance AMassiveGay (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
He'd be more electable than an atheist, Judeo-Christian stuff and all that jazz.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 17:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
link notice how he doesn't mention faith or god but rather heritage Pizzameister (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
So he avoids answering the so-called "Gretchen question" (German idiom for the "sixty-four-thousand-dollar question", inspired by the scene from Goethe's Faust I, where Gretchen asks Faust about his religiosity and Faust skillfully avoids giving a clear answer)? What a sly devil he is!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 17:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, after asking this question I went to a well known search engine. I find that he identifies himself as a secular Jew. Isn't that more-or-less code for atheist?— Unsigned, by: Bob_M / talk / contribs
It is.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a way of saying atheist to those that want to hear atheist and not atheist to those that don't want to hear it. Also, it is a good way of being "not too Jewish"... Pizzameister (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
He basically sounds like a secular humanist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 19:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is he electable?[edit]

I like the idea of watching wingnuts' heads explode as much as the next goat-fearing American, but could he really beat Trump or Cruz in the general election? Read-Write (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure he could. Polling at this stage in the race is not reliable for a general election, but the polls we have suggest he's far ahead of any Republican... Pizzameister (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Article needs massive re-write[edit]

This whole article needs touching up, its too obvious it was written by people who are wearing bernie-print underoos. The whole legit criticisms section is completely irrelevant because it basically glosses over his actual problem with a "meh" Also the anti-hillary circlejerk is showing really bad. I would rewrite it but damn I ave no idea where to begin. Sandflapjack (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So which legitimate criticisms against him do you have? Lets hear 'em... Pizzameister (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
A re-write may be needed just because a lot of the grammar and syntax in the "Legit Crit" section is terrible. I'm staying out the politics though. Petey Plane (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
all those in the article are legitimate critisisms, though it is missing his very dismissive personality, inability to work with those in opposition and his approval of nuclear waste dumping. The tone of the article is too apologetic is the problem. Every single problem brought up is brushed aside. Every sentence literally ends with either "but he made up for it later" or "but h-hillary" I dont think there is another article on the wiki so dismissive. Sandflapjack (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
According to the user rights console, you can edit the article. Why don't you do so?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There are a couple areas in the "legit criticism" where the tone, but, for the most part, I don't think it is that dismissive. I haven't read any source about him supporting nuclear waste dumping and I was under the impression that he was against nuclear energy because there weren't enough safeguards. I am not sure his persona is relevant since that seems to be largely subjective and he is known to have passed a large number of amendments throughout his career so idk how you came to the conclusion that he is unwilling to work with the opposition.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 00:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
As someone who is not known for being a huge fanboy of Bernie Sanders (ask Owlman), I can't really say I find anything too objectionable about the tone or content of the article. The stuff about BernieBros might be handwaved and downplayed (the source backing it up is not shy about being in Bernie's camp), but it's hard to blame Sanders for some assholes he has already denounced. Hentropy (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hillary-Brosis (or whatever you want to call them) are no less dismissive and aggressive. Just about any comment section that deals with either of them has Hillary supporters (or people who claim to be that) accuse Sanders of "not being a real Democrat" and worse things... And the whole way the ethnic composition of the electorate is played does have a sour aftertaste as well... Pizzameister (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Bernie had the Internet advantage from the very beginning, and even as his campaign was generally very positive you had a number of Bernie fans online who started to come up with new ways to insult her ($hillary, etc.) while recycling old right-wing smears. Of course there were going to Hillary supporters who sunk to the same level, because it's the Internet. You go on any comment board for political issues, twitter, etc. it is rather disproportional in favor of Sanders. And yeah, it can get rather nasty, sexist racist etc, but it's also completely out of the control of either campaign. Trump and company is a little different, as they essentially encourage and stoke their supporters. Hentropy (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I would say that I am nit a Bernie "fanboy", but I have a stated bias for the man. I have been the main contributor to the legit criticism section, but I am willing to discuss the tone I have created for that section.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC) 02:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sandflapjack, I think your criticism of Bernie's "inability to work with those in opposition" is totally stupid. He hammered out a compromise with the Republicans on the VA, passing a bill that significantly improved that system. That's a pretty big deal. Also, I don't view compromising, finding the half way point between truth and lies, to be a good and useful thing in this case. Are we gonna compromise on gay rights? Compromise on war? "Oh, we'll invade this country but not that one". No! These are things we should stand up for and be resolute on, not concede to the wrong side! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The Civil War happened because political America found itself unable to compromise on slavery one more time. Whether you think of that as a good thing or a bad thing depends mostly upon your attitude towards black people... Pizzameister (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent mona reverts and minor edits[edit]

The edits I made were just a small sampling to see if the article can be cleaned up of it's anti-hillary retoric. Yes' there is an anti-hillary circlejerk on the page. Having something like "Unlike most other candidates in the race (especially Hillary Clinton)" Is completly unessesary and only serves to demonize her further. There is literally no other reason to put it there besides to give her a Cleveland steamer. " Incidentally, the first three are all members of ethnic minorities, whereas polling suggests he has difficulty attracting minority voters." Is also unessesary. You should be able to state his upsides without also trailing into "hah take that minority vote, you FUCKS" Sandflapjack (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well now. That's an angry rant to be sure. But it's not persuasive support of your edits. Could you perhaps try a reasoned and calm analysis of what you find wrong in the passage?---Mona- (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

He thinks it shouldn't be anti-Hillary. I disagree. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

WEEWOO WEEWOO oh no look out guys its the tone police GET DOWN. Like, seriously? I just said what the problem was. Its an unessesary anti-hillary statement and should be removed. It is anti-hillary because the only reason it could possibly be there is to damn hillary.
Hm, trying to police the tone of the article and calling others tone police?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 03:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 03:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Look mmmmm buddy mmm friendo mmm pal, you want me here to argue the edit, and I am, and all youve done so far is basically go "umad?" What are you fucking 12. If you arent going to argue why it shouldnt be edited im just going to go back to reverting it. Sandflapjack (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you not revert. You are in the minority, having failed to make your case. You'd have to be blocked or vandal binned for a time if you recommenced edit warring. So, please don't.---Mona- (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
It only looks like ive failed to make my case because Funny Jokesters arent actually addressing my argument. My argument, for the 69th time is "this is unnecessarily bashing hillary in a section that it doesnt need to and should be removed" I have yet to see you actually say anything about it. Sandflapjack (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
1. You have not persuaded me that it constitutes "Hillary bashing," and 2. You have not persuaded me that it "needs to be removed."---Mona- (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
1. It is hillary bashing because of the wording. "ESPECIALLY hillary" implies that the reader must take extra attention to recognize hillary's inability over others and draw attention to her. If it was not an anti-hillary statement it would not draw attention to her specifically if she inst the only democratic candidate who is at fault here. Even so the unnecessarily of it is what makes it anti hillary. There is no reason for it to be there besides to demonize her further, which the article already does multiple time. It is bashing someone when you bring up a person for no reason, much like thunderfoot does with anita sarkessian in videos such as his ghostbusters review. 2. It is unnecessary because the very fact that me making the edits still preserves exactly what needs to be said about the matter. The fact that the senators are all minorities are completely irrelevant to the sentance used, and is possibly an insult torwards the polls showing that minority voters favor Clinton. even with that context it makes less sense. It feels more petty than anything, like a "well looky here fellas" Sandflapjack (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Look, the word "especially" communicates that Hillary Clinton in particular has boatloads of congressional endorsements. This is simply true. Why you think it constitutes "bashing" her is a mystery, one you have failed to explain. I do not accept your edits. It appears no one else does, either.---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and theres no reason for it to be there besides to draw unnecessary attention to her in a situation that doesnt pertain to her. Ok ok lets say that youre 1000% in the right that hillary clinton is satan, why then is there a necessity to talk about her constantly, even when there is a situation that doesnt call for such comments? Even a right argument can be obsessive and not needed. Also I keep hearing about this army of people agreeing with you and thinking ive obviously lost this, yet I only see one chucklefuck and a mod doing his job my moderating. Methinks youre full of shit. Sandflapjack (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the line. It's a neutral comparison. Having a lot of endorsement could be considered a good thing depending on your mindset and beliefs. A strong anti-Hillary bias would be like "Bernie hasn't taken any money from banks (unlike Hillary, that shill!) or something. Hentropy (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok now, lets take your example and say it isnt anti-hillary, heres a question. Why is it necessary, on an article about bernie sanders, to bring up clinton in so many instances. This is about his supporters, and has nothing to do with hillary. Sandflapjack (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
" in a situation that doesnt pertain to her." Now I see the source of your confusion. You see, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are locked in an intense battle for the Democratic Party's nomination for president. That Bernie has very few congressional endorsements is why Hillary's contrasting, extraordinary number pertain to him.---Mona- (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Im in an intense fuckin battle with this turd thats been lodged up in my colon, but that doesnt mean I bring it up at dinner parties. It doesnt matter who he is in "battle" with, its a section about his followers, not hillary. How hard is that to understand? Do I need to talk about my bowels more? Sandflapjack (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the section is about Sanders' supporters. Among those in Congress, he has very few; Hillary has almost all of them.---Mona- (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep in mind that these pages are supposed to be informative to people who may not be intimately familiar with the insides of American politics, pointing out that Sanders doesn't have many endorsements doesn't mean much unless you know Hillary has many of them. Hentropy (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Then bring it up in Hillary's supporters page, Theres only two damn democrats at the moment and we already know hillary is his runningmate up at the top of the article. You dont need to hammer it in everywhere. Also dont forget the part where it basically says at the bottom "WHY WON'T THOSE DAMN MINORITIES ELECT BERNIE". Like what a weird time to bring up those polls. Also I see you mona, protecting the article, making your garbage edit, then re-protecting it you powerhug. Sandflapjack (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Also who gives mona the fucking right to protect the page and have sole edit rights? She isnt even supposed to BE HERE ANYMORE. Sandflapjack (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── She wasn't booted out, she LANCB'd. And it was calm for a couple of months... CorruptUser (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You have quite the active imagination. In fact, there were numerous coop cases (and other drama) in my absence, two of them involving persons who have been extremely abusive to me: Sorte Slyngel and Castaigne. It seems they remain assholes without me around.---Mona- (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I told you I was one and always will be. You seem to not to listen very well. It has nothing to do with my personal despite towards you. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I have not doubted that you are a repugnant person since shortly after my arrival here last August. My point, which you assist with quite well, was to CorruptUser, who would have readers believe that during my sabbatical, everyone here held hands and sang Kum Ba Yah. AS your career here in that period, as well as the Chicken Coop record show, that is not remotely the case.---Mona- (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure were a lot less edit wars. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure, to my surprise, the I-P articles were left almost entirely alone, and the few times someone tried to revert stuff that didn't suit their Zionist narrative, others didn't let them, which was generally accepted. I fought the major battles to get those articles in shape, and yeah, that meant lots and lots of edit warring from Zionists who would never accept that they were in the minority. But I've done not much of that since my return; no reasonable person can see anyone but sandflapjack at fault last nite. My only real set-to since returning was with Typhoon today (and it turned out she was right).---Mona- (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to feel a whole lot of schadenfreude when Sanders loses the nomination. Nate Silver won't be wrong on that. You should honestly save yourself the disappointment. --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, Nate hasn't done as well this primary. But: 1. It's not clear that Sanders will lose the primaries, 2. Sanders is a movement; he/we win by his strong candidacy sending a message to the DNC and getting them all shook up. The oldsters solidly for Hillary are dying and the next voting cohort coming online is going to track the millennials. The DNC is going to HAVE TO move left if it wants to survive, and 3. Of course you will be happy. You are an evil person, literally, no hyperbole.---Mona- (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I will lay $100 real money down that Hillary wins the nomination.
I will also lay $100 real money down that the DNC shift to the left will be insignificant, as the RNC will move further right and/or splinter ineffectively, leading to Democrat dominance for the next couple of cycles. The DNC will remain a moderate centrist party.
I will be happy because idealism is an evil thing and it is better for humanity that pragmatism, practicality, and realpolitik prevail. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
He's not lying, either. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope, never do. I tell people I'm an authoritarian. They think I'm lying. I tell people I'm an asshole. They think I'm lying. I tell people exactly what I'm going to do, how I'm going to do it, and why. Nope, must be lying. And then the inevitable SHOCK and HORROR that a person is/does what they say. Of all the things to accuse me of, why dishonesty? Foolishness. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Most people are authoritarians; few are willing to admit it. Nearly everyone thinks they know how the world should work, and thinks they have the right to force it on others. That's the real reason for the horseshoe theory, where you have extremists from both ends using force. CorruptUser (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't like your tone, Sandflapjack, you should use your inside voice. Jokes aside, though, I agree that it is irrelevant to mention his lack of support among racial minorities right next to the members of Congress being supporters who, happen to be racial minorities.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 04:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
"I agree that it is irrelevant to mention his lack of support among racial minorities right next to the members of Congress being supporters who, happen to be racial minorities" It's not irrelevant in the least. A major point of discussion in the Sanders v. Clinton race has been where the minority voters are going. Much has been made of Hillary's lock on Southern black voters. (Tho the lock on black voters has been steadily slipping as more and more prominent black activists endorse Sanders, and more BLM activists come out for Sanders. Not to me mention Bill Clinton's latest slap at BLM, spoken while on the stump for his wife.) Hillary has almost all the congressional endorsements in her party -- save five, three of whom are minorities. That's relevant because the issue of who "has" the minority vote is a hot topic in the race, and one of them is the only Muslim in Congress, who, cutting against stereotype, is for the Jewish candidate. But, to try to keep everyone happy, I dropped that point into a footnote.---Mona- (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I think you would do a better service if you include those facts along with superdelegates and polling under a new section on electability in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination since the media loves irking both Clinton and Sanders supporters with those kinds of op-eds.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 01:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I know, you've suggested my editing that article before. In all likelihood I will. But I'm pretty tired and it won't be tonite.---Mona- (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Crystal balls and 'the black vote'[edit]

I haven't read the whole discussion and I don't plan to, but I must say I'm rather troubled by how much value is put into the accuracy of people's election forecasts—they're just educated guesses, people—and the recurrent suggestion that black voters across the US have (or should have) near-identical political interests/preferences. And Nate Silver's suggestion that Democratic voters in the Deep South meaningfully reflect the Democratic electorate in its entirety sounds like ignorant idealism to me. Different circumstances breed different sentiments. And aside from ideological differences between various demographics of black people, in the Deep South I'd also expect a greater number of ideologically conservative African Americans to end up in the Democratic party than elsewhere. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that he didn't just talk about the South (and he even pointed out Mississippi and Louisiana as not representative of his definition). FFS, people. Read actually what he said. I'm copypasting the relevant parts in here:

The most representative state by this measure is New Jersey. We expect its primary electorate to be about 57 percent white, 26 percent black, 11 percent Hispanic and 6 percent Asian or other, quite close to the national Democratic electorate. New Jersey won’t vote until June 7, although Clinton was well ahead when the last poll was released there in February.

After New Jersey comes Illinois, which Clinton won narrowly — and then Florida, where Clinton won going away. Then there’s New York, which votes Tuesday, and where Clinton is 15 percentage points ahead in our polling average. Virginia, another Southern state, ranks as the next most representative; Clinton won it easily. Then there’s Nevada, another Clinton state, before we go back to the South to North Carolina, also won by Clinton. The next group of four states (Maryland, Tennessee, Arkansas and Michigan) are roughly tied and include some further representation for the South, along with, finally, one state (Michigan) that Sanders won.

In other words, Clinton has won or is favored to win almost every state where the turnout demographics strongly resemble those of Democrats as a whole. This shouldn’t be surprising — Clinton is winning nationally by about 14 percentage points in the popular vote. So if you’re in a state that’s well-representative of Democrats’ national demographics, you might expect her to win it by a solid margin too.

Typhoon (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
(ec):Nate Silver is actually a statistician with a track record of some excellent prognostications, including in sports. That said, he has been underperforming in this primary season. I do agree with you, however, that his analysis of voting in the Southern States, including by blacks, is flawed. Those states primaried early, then Bernie won almost a third of black votes in Michigan. The trend has been for him to increase support in the black community. He may not take NY, but the fact that he's competitive there -- in New York! -- is absolutely astonishing. Hillary hadn't thought she'd even have to campaign there, and to put it mildly, she most certainly has had to.---Mona- (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon, can't you write in your own words? If you want additional points to the quote as I shortened it, just write: "Silver also argues that blah blah blah way Democrats vote blah blah."---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
People repeatedly fail to read Nate's article before attacking him, which is why I'm quoting parts of. Typhoon (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
And here, again, you illustrate how Silver seems solely focused on the ethnicity of voters and nothing else (and he's far from the only one). I find that problematic. Don't you? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I find it problematic how Sanders and his fanboys continue to insult southern black voters who are loyal democrats as "low information" and irrelevant. I find it problematic how even this article dismissed them before as "the confederacy" and implied that their votes are worthless. It's blatant racism. As Nate said: "Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there." Typhoon (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"I find it problematic how Sanders and his fanboys continue to insult southern black voters who are loyal democrats as "low information" and irrelevant" That's pure strawmanning. No one, certainty not me, has claimed that. But I do actually hold the opinion that, especially older black voters, are voting against their interests in supporting Hillary Clinton. African-American legal scholar Michelle Alexander explains why I think this in The Nation:  Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote,From the crime bill to welfare reform, policies Bill Clinton enacted—and Hillary Clinton supported—decimated black America. (Older African-Americans have not read or absorbed her excellent book, The New Jim Crow.) Moreover, white working-class voters have been voting against their interests for DECADES. It's not surprising that blacks are capable of the same error. But not so much the younger ones.---Mona- (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a sad fact that voters in general are often badly informed, globally speaking (it's not just the US). It's also a sad fact that the votes of Democrats (black or white) in the Deep South are mostly politically irrelevant, since chances are very low that they'll manage to gain a plurality in the actual election. I personally also think that party loyalty is not something that should be valued in a democracy. What is and isn't dicey depends a lot on who you ask, but if you're gonna focus purely on the ethnic demographics of the South and ignore the stronger roots conservatism has there (even condemning Sanders for bringing it up because that's somehow offensive to black voters there???) you're just fooling yourself. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Like most demographics, blacks tend to listen to their leaders. The black civil rights establishment has become just that-- an establishment. There's a generational rift there that reflects other voters as well, including whites.---Mona- (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
>Blacks Gee Mona, I didn't know you were living in the 1960s Sandflapjack (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, keep calling them "badly informed" for not voting for your candidate. Keep throwing the word "establishment" like some kind of Tea party nutjob. Sanders will totally gain their votes that way. Just keep up with the insults. Typhoon (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not called African-American Lives Matter.---Mona- (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's also called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People but I'm sure if you called someone "a colored" they'd slap you in the face. Sandflapjack (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The NAACP was founded many decades ago, when "colored" was acceptable. Black Lives Matter was founded about three years ago. By black activists. Who chose the name.---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Ta-Nehisi Coates wrotes this last fall: The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration. There've been no reports of anyone slapping his face. You are a bile-addled idiot.---Mona- (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
You don't know or interact with a lot of black people, do you Sandflapjack? While maybe not the most formal term, it's a socially acceptable, at least in the US. As with everything, context is key, but as just casual, conversational use to identify one person from another, it's a non-issue. Petey Plane (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The euphemism treadmill is fascinating and all, but quite besides the point. Can we get back on topic now? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:55, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

It's over[edit]

Sanders will have to win massive victories in every state from now on to even have a chance. It's high time for this article to get back on ground. There's no "momentum" in primary politics. Demographics trump all. The continuous attacks and poll "unskewing" aimed at Nate Silver and anyone who criticizes Sander's fanbase are lame. Sadly, it's literally only mona who's at fault for this article reading like it's from some alternate reality. Typhoon (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me reinforce this point by saying I massively prefer Sanders to Clinton, but typhoon is nonetheless 100% right about this. As scientists we should accept that polling methodology that has reliable, accurate results beats out any narrative. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Give it up, mona. Michigan remains the lone bizarro state. Nate was completely right about every other state, youur attempts at character assassination are idiotic, and you continue to reinsert the lie about anyone thinking about Hillary winning southern states in the GE. And Sander's "significant" minority support is WAY behind Hillary's support; in the latest in NY, Hillary got 75% of black voters, that's a crushing number. Typhoon (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I am a big fan of Bernie but it is kind of over barring anything unexpected. There are other more constructive, and less dickish, ways to move forward on items than starting a war on this. Are we going to have another several month long edit war and Coop involving Mona because she wants to tout Bernie as a winner? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Emerald, this is the Bernie Sanders page. Not the Capmpaign '16 page. Do I think it's likely he will win the nomination? No. Do the changes in the electorate his campaign shows with each primary matter, both for him and as the indication his success has been of a fundamental political realignment? Yes, and yes. ---Mona- (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The sections that are in dispute are the one's pertaining to the "Capmpaign '16". No one's arguing about what Sanders believes, the argument is over the continued ignoring of basic math when it comes to the primary. Typhoon (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Mona, I can see your point. Firstly you are changing the campaign '16 part so basic logical reasoning would lead people to believe it at least belongs somewhere else if it doesn't pertain to that. However I think you are missing another portion of his appeal by your actions. Respectful disagreement and discussion for consensus, since we're all in this together, not as your actions now are displaying in dictating and warring where everyone is expected to bleat in agreement. It's a proud thing for me to have a movement that's looking for assertive change that didn't devolve into Tea Bigot behavior. That way there can be lasting change instead of infighting, anger, ridicule, and eventual disillusion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Dont fret! bernie only needs 147% of the voters to win! It's in the bag! She only won new york because she cheated! Praise be bern! Sandflapjack (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary material[edit]

There's no reason not to include the arguments among campaign predictors, as well as their failures, as well as the blviating of various pundits -- and not leave any of them as being the last or best word. Nor is there any reason to decree that material becomes "obsolete" because another primary has occurred. The Sanders campaign is causing a serious jolt to what the punditry as well as the DNC expected to happen: a swift coronation for Hillary Clinton. Documenting the trouble she's had in many states, as well as the strong challenge Bernie Sanders presents to her record, is all relevant.

The significant support Sanders has among minority voters, which wasn't predicted by anyone, is important history. Even if Hillary manages to pull off the nomination, this primary shows, as many are observing, that a Democratic Party characterized by Clintonism is too far right for an emerging majority of Dem and Independent voters. This election is almost certainly only the beginning of a significant change. Bernie Sanders is the barometer of all this. ---Mona- (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyohonn, stop removing the Glover quote. It is not "huge." PLease go checkk the size of yours before I compromised to allow the giant bloc of text you still have plopped there. The Glover quote is an ordinary, stylistically sound amount.---Mona- (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Paul Krugman isn't racist. Stop this nonsense. Typhoon (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon, you are not reading clearly; Glover reasonably felt Krugman implied Sanders is racist, and objected to the whole column. Many did. THIS PAGE IS ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS, NOT THE ELECTION PER SE. What Bernies says, what is said about him,as well as the movement many, many say he is galvanizing and initiating, is all proper to this page.---Mona- (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You're reading implications where there aren't any. Typhoon (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

---

I need to leave for a bit. When I return, I'm going to address at greater length what I see as a fundamental error in how many see the purpose of the Bernie Sanders article, which is impacting what some feel is "obsolete" or irrelevant or my suopposedly "cheerleading" for a likely losing candidate. But, later.---Mona- (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A poll made in February is outdated to polls made in April. You're fighting to keep them because you want to paint the absolutely best picture of Sanders you can. Every newer poll that is made you ignore, if it's not positive for Sanders. You're shameless in whitewashing this article. Your ridiculous atttacks on Nate and Krugman will not be allowed, leave that for the "unskewed polls" guy. When I ask for exit poll sources, provide them instead of just reverting. Typhoon (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"The significant support Sanders has among minority voters, which wasn't predicted by anyone, is important history." But he is doing shitty in places where minorities are more prevelant. Quit fingering your ears like you want to finger benie sander's hot wet ballot box. Sandflapjack (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

He won both Hawai'i and Alaska which are less white than Virginia. He is doing bad with African Americans and women especially older African Americans and women, but African Americans and women aren't the only minority groups in the US.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 20:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

My two cents on Mona[edit]

I don't wish the woman any harm, so before anyone blames any of that doxing shit on me... That said, from my observations, that woman is nothing more than a drama queen. She is taking ownershio of articles, starting edit wars, hurling insults and accusations at her opponents, and using her sysop powers to win edit wars. Why does she have a mop still? There was a thread at the coop about promoting her, but the OP "chickened" out because he didn't want to cause drama. Meanwhile, the deama is still happening, just not at the coop. I see many people on this thread see that she is creating more problems than productive contributions. Again, why on earth is she still a sysop? Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you get on your main and make a coop then? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Because it's locked down to only moderators? Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If it isn't unlocked before then, I'll unlock it in May. CorruptUser (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I guess AgingHippie won't be coming back anytime soon then. :/ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

I'll go further, actually. Why not get on your main on the first place? Or are you the same person(s) who have been harassing Mona? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Im still salty af about getting de-opped because of mona drama. Sandflapjack (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Well it doesn't look that good when you make socks. I think Mona is a zealot but I have the courage to say it to her face instead of hiding behind alts. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
SFJ, you didn't get desysopped because of "Mona-drama" you got desysopped for edit warring with several editors.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 00:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
And he was rightfully desysopped, because he is just as much of a drama queen. My main is blocked for three months, despite not using it to make a single bad faith edit. Seriously, if you analyze this account closely, it shouldn't be hard to ID my main, but then again, liberals are clueless. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I know who you are, but it doesn't matter to me.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Because you are wiser than the one who said to use my main (or less silly than they are) Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, you just have to type in the name of your first account to find it redirects to a similar name that you are using now. I assume you are the one who has been doxing people and creating accounts directed towards Mona?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
If you are then I am not surprised.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
My first account? Please, you wouldn't recognize that one if it reached up and bit you in the ass. It's six years old. Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you have more accounts besides DMorris (1) then yeah, but that doesn't concern me.--Owlman (talk)(mail) 01:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 01:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd tell you about the first one, but there's still dox up on that one's talk page which I wasn't allowed to remove and I would like to stay burried in obscurity. Man has this site changed! Defender of the Damsels in Distress (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Then email me it and I will purge it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC) 01:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: this whole thread: Troll FuzzyCatPotato of the Repugnant Leukemias (talk/stalk) 00:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It should be pretty damn obvious that this user is the umpteenth sock of DMorris2.--JorisEnter (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Sanders article is reading like from some alternate reality[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

(handy section the first)[edit]

I was hoping that after New York we could tone down the fawning about Sander's "momentum", but alas. Mona is ensuring that the article remains in a ludicrous state. I'm talking about the sections that talk about the current primary election. They continue to paint an extremely optimistic picture, gushing about how Sanders is "gaining" in the minority vote by "only" losing 75% of the black vote, and almost 70% of the latino vote, numbers that would be anywhere else considered a crushing defeat. Everytime a source is added talking about how Sanders is behind in the polls, or how he's unlikely to win, something that even Sanders supporters don't dispute as of now, mona either removes it, saying that it's "too long" or adds huge character assasination blockquotes, with the intent to dismiss. "Oh Nate Silver was again correct in his prediciton? Lets remind everyone that because of Michigan he's now not to be trusted." "Krugman criticised Sanders for thinking that things will get easy once he's from the "deep south"? Let's call him racist and add another huge blockquote". I'm starting to fear that nothing will be done until Bernie bows out of the race. Right now it's embarrassing how the article looks like. Typhoon (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it's borderline hagiographic with too many editorial assertions. Final line is a good example "The Sanders campaign is not, for many of hus (sic) supporters, merely about trying to put Bernie in the White House; it(sic) also about changing the terms in which the issues of the day are discussed and pushing the parameters to the left (the syntax of that whole sentence is weird). As activist Jesse A. Myerson puts it: "The purpose is to continue on to a 'new normal.'
That's actually 1 supporter, not "many". That sentence reads like The Onion headline "Sociologist considers own behavior indicative of a larger trend." Petey Plane (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Well if it is just one supporter, why has the rest of the users not stopped him or her? Pizzameister (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
It's also just a random name with no source. That makes it even less indicative of a broader trend, and useless on a wiki. Petey Plane (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I can actually put down a source. It comes from the Opinions section of the English language version of the multinational Latin/South-American news site TeleSUR (located here). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it is indicative of a larger trend of wealth having more power than people, as seen in the protests around DC, and *spoiler* I am a big fan of Bernie. I think the article is now taking it a bit overboard that's making supporters seem more like part of a personality cult than people looking for reasonable and needed change (what I feel about myself). One thing that I was very happy about was Bernie listening to opposition, respectfully disagreeing, and explaining cogently the support for what he desires to do. I wish all the candidates did so as well as he does. Going nuclear right out of the gates actively repels moderates and proves some of the vile comments by people like Trump correct.
I am actually proud, sad to say, that I am part of a political group that doesn't act like angry psychos. I want to keep it that way honestly. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The point still stands that it's an unsourced quote from a random person (who may as well be the editor themselves). It has no business on the page. The only thing it is indicative of is a willingness to use shoddy methods to push a specific agenda, which speaks to the overall point of this section. Petey Plane (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not against Sander's, or his voters', political positions. I'm against the "unskewing" of polls and virulent attacking of anyone who dares to point out that he's way behind in the polls or that his popularity is lower than Hillary's (as reflected by the votes). Right now Mona is going nuclear and shitting on Nate Silver for daring to predict that Sanders will not win and also attacking Krugman for pointing out that Hillary has no problem winning states outside of the "Deep South". You can't right now write into the article that Sanders is losing the primary without Mona inserting attacks on people who dare to point out the obvious. The only people who can be quoted in the article without being dragged through the mud by Mona are people who think that Sanders is the second coming and that he's winning the primary (mona denies this, but when the article still contains bullshit about Sanders being "competitive" among black and latino voters, despite loosing them heavily even outside of the "deep south" it makes for bizarre reading) Typhoon (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope, and I apologize if you got that message but I felt I had to preface what I said or I would be placed out of the Sander's "tribal group" in saying these edits are less grounded in reality as they should be. I think this reaction is embarrassing to me and makes values I think are very important look crazy. The end and the means to that end are just as important. While I know everyone is responsible for their own behavior, not speaking on this at all seems like more of a problem than saying something. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
For the record, i like Bernie, and i'll vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping Trump (or in the off chance, Cruz) out of the white house. Petey Plane (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I won't vote for Hindenburg.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
You know, if every article Mona touches turns into a warzone, maybe Mona is the problem. I actively avoid any article she edits because I have better things to do than spend hours in Internet arguments. --Ymir (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post! FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 20:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Bingo. Petey Plane (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post! --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 21:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Careful, any post like this generally gets a screed under it about doxing and zionists. AyzmoCheers 21:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely and we end up getting called evil, vile and literally Gihren Zabi Adolf Hitler.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 21:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 21:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Having long stopped being an active member of this community and lurking instead I can safetly say that in my 7or so years at RW Mona is up there in the pantheon of drama queens. Acei9 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post! (despite being on the Board, and, somehow, also a Mod Rocker.) ħumanUser talk:Human 01:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post!StickySock (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Good post!} Couldn't agree more. This is why I avoid Israel-related articles: whenever I point out that Hamas is a terrorist group that has a stated goal of wiping out Israel, she shows up and reverts everything I've added, even when well-sourced and appropriate to the topic. Qscgy (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an observation I made in one of the Avenger coop cases as well. I would have made a similar case in the last coop case as well if FCP hadn't archived it before I had the chance. At any rate, I don't necessarily disagree with Mona as such, it's just that Mona is simply not very good at "collaborative authorship". This is a skill not everyone is good at. There is no shame in that because it's *hard* to accept changes you don't personally agree with to pages you spent a lot of time working on and care a lot about. However, it's a "core skill" of wiki editing and just as important − if not more important − than the actual writing itself.
Not being good at this is okay. We can work on that, just like we can work with editors that make the same spelling/grammer/etc. mistakes every time they write something. But ... it would require that Mona would recognize there is a problem. Which she she doesn't. It's always other people at fault. In that sense, Mona is not that different from people like Ryulong (who also never recognized there was a problem with his behaviour...) Carpetsmoker (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I support Bernie but see no reason to lie about his performance. If Shillary wins, she wins, the U.S. did it to themselves. It is well known that Mona is a zealot. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The hillary article is just as bad, due to being protected under the United Nations of Mona. Sadly, theres nothing that can be done until mona decides to just let us unfuckify the articles. Meanwhile I think ill stick to the fossil-o-sphere. Sandflapjack (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Although, to be fair...[edit]

Sanders is still more popular among the working classes. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting maps you got there. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Always trust pro-bernie facebook images. Also, what is this? A chart for ants? It needs to be at least.....3 times bigger. Sandflapjack (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
That chart is stoopid. Most people in NYC are working class, but they earn "more" because the cost of living is like 2.5x that of living upstate. CorruptUser (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
SFJ that is the Guardian's election coverage and a demographics map not just some FB photo.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 01:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
link 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:10, 21 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
I don't think anyone's said that Sanders has no support... just not enough to win. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 02:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, 538 gives him about a 5-10% chance of winning, which sounds about right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
That's a bit high if you ask me. Bernie would win if Clinton's email server was found on Vince Foster's grave in Benghazi. Or Clinton had a severe blackhole-where-her-heart-should-be attack. StickySock (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
(EC) It would have to be the most spectacular comebacks or bloodiest backstabbing to have ever occured since... 1801? He is close in every New England state, but Maryland. Though, idk how he can muster the charisma to win in Pennsylvania, let alone the rest of New England. There would have to be a major wild card in a brokered convention in order for the superdelegates to boost and the only wild cards I can think of woukd be her getting indicted or dying.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 15:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Now, we all know clinton is literally satan and has committed some of the worse atrocities known to man, all thanks to gold man-sacks. Whoops sorry I was wearing mona's fedora for a second. Sandflapjack (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, Clinton and Obama are pretty much the rule when it comes to the Dems while people like Sanders and Warren are the exception, but I fear they will be removed like Kucinich. The main reason I will not vote for her is because she is a neo-con hawk who supports regime change and seems willing to start a new Cold War.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 19:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
"she is a neo-con hawk who supports regime change and seems willing to start a new Cold War." Compared to trump who would never dream of doing something like this. :^ ) Sandflapjack (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
From what he has said no he wouldn't, but carpet bombing, assassination, and torture would be horrific. So I wouldn't say there is much of a choice in a Clinton v Trump battle.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 20:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
But you would still be voting for someone who thinks secular governments should be toppled in favor of Islamic ones. That's a pretty horrific view, held by the likes of Reagan and Bush Sr. She wants to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. I'm not voting for that. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we should be supporting either side; these secular, Ba'athist governments will inevitably be toppled by Islamists, but we shouldn't support them in their endeavor. I would prefer the Islamist win since they usually win with a coalition of secular, liberal, and leftist support which, even if suppressed, has influence after the revolutions and have usually led to some form of democracy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 22:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer the Islamist win- Owlman DAESH, al-Qaeda or al-Nusra?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 14:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Well in a perfect world none of them would win and Assad would step down but that isn't going to happen. The FSA has been essentially dissolved and most of the secularists are gone while the Kurds (PKK and YPG) don't care about the non-Kurdish parts of Syria. If Assad wins then he will continue to be a brutal dictator even if he becomes a close ally to the West. A good example is Iran which is repressive, but has tolerated some of the liberals and leftists and is slowing changing after the Iran deal something the Shah would've done.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 14:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
That means that these liberals and leftists are guilt of accommodationism, not that Iran is not a horrible Islamist dictatorship.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 14:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 14:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the Cold War policy of supporting Islamic theocracies and its modern continuation is a shame the West will never be forgiven for. One has only to look at the Western intervention in Iran under Mossadegh to see the atrocity, these acts were repreated across the Muslim world to install theocratic governments that would oppose the atheist USSR. Even now, Western money keeps the Hanbali and Athari scholars well funded in Saudi Arabia, most if not all terrorism and fundamentalism is directly because the Ashar'i and non-Hanbali moderates have deem demonized by the Salafi propaganda organ that is Saudi Arabia. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Where the hell has Clinton supported Islamism? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Ask the guy I responded to. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Any support to Saudia Arabia is support to Islamist and Wahhabist to be specific.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 22:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Working on it[edit]

Im cleaning up the article, fixing up grammar, and removing some of the unrealistic statements. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I tried, but mona is watching over it like a hawk. Sandflapjack (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
God's speed. Looking forward to the multiple co-op cases. Petey Plane (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
She already had a co-op, and they....just deleted it. No action, nothing. Even after she said she would sockpuppet to get it back, and admits to being able to brigade (and possibly brigaded the post). This wiki's management is seriously bullshit. Sandflapjack (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I made it, I deleted it. It was causing 1 part solution and 50 parts drama. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nice & all but why is this shit all over the Saloon Bar rather than the article's talk page where it should be? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this started as a conversation on Mona's edit warring, then led to a discussion on the validity of her claims, which led to a discussion on US POTUS politics.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 22:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Does it matter? I agree with Mona on many things, it doesn't change the fact that she's a zealot. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who you are addressing, but if you are addressing me then my response was about why this topic is here, at the Saloon, and not someone else.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC) 23:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Krugman[edit]

The Sanders article isn't the place for you to fill it with "contempt directed at Krugman". You're emotionally attached to Bernie in such a way that you immediately smear anyone with even the slightest criticism of him. Typhoon (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Sanders article is exactly the place to show how Sanders supporters have been mocking Krugman all along the campaign. Why wouldn't it be?---Mona- (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
The Sanders article is about Sanders, not YOU. You're the one overzealous Sanders supporter with a hatred of anyone who criticizes your idol. Typhoon (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, stop filling the article with useless cheerleading. Sanders is completely losing the race, much more than Clinton did in 2008. Typhoon (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon, you simply are not listening. Your objections can go in one of the election articles perhaps. THIS is the Bernie Sanders article. Please, stop and read what I am writing, and what the sources say. Bernie is bigger than this primary season, and so is his page.---Mona- (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Never have I acted as if I "own this article." Typhoon, I just added a lot of well-sourced text and worked hard on it. You are essentially blanking all that I did and "defending that" with insults. I really don't know what to do.---Mona- (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

From saloon[edit]

So, I've listened to those who say I edit war too much. Fine, I've considered that and am trying to rein that in. But I just don't know what to do. I came back to add relevant material about Bernie Sanders, the man, the movement, and the campaign, to the Bernie Sanders page. Typohoon is virtually blanking everything I write and rather tyhan substantively criticizing it simnply insulting me.

What does anyone suggest I do?---Mona- (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your "relevant material" is a huge expansion of an attack on Krugman for daring to say that Hillary won states outside of the "deep south", reinsertion of claims of Sander's increasing "momentum" despite him falling more and more behind the delegate race, adding outdated and irrelevant polls about Sanders beating "decisively" Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and adding ANOTHER huge sections about his "momentum" with massive blockquotes. All of this two days before Sanders suffers another blow-out in the primaries. You literally returned only to resume your ownership over the Sanders article. People are now avoiding editing "your" articles from fear of getting into an edit war with you. Typhoon (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Now you know what it feels like for someone who might think the I-P articles are not entirely correct. Typhoon is a zealot, you now understand how annoying it is to deal with one of these people. The only thing you can do is go to the talk page, make sure your sources are strong and all your statements are sourced, etc. Sometimes it still doesn't work. I had to give up and abandon the regressive left page because the zealots can't be reasoned with unless you have an army on your side. If anything, you can learn from this and try to consider how others might feel if you're tempted to act like Typhoon on an issue you feel strongly about. :/ Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

None of that is true. Krugman, as I DOCUMENTED, has been widely mocked throughout the whole campaign for his writing about Bernie Sanders. YOU brought him into the article, and object to what I can document many people have said about him on the subject the article is about. My blockquotes, those are no longer than I ever use, on any article. Bernie Sanders is widely written about, and seen as, far bigger than this priumary, as I DOCUMENT. (The New Yorker is not minor, or "rah-rah Sanders" outlet, and is one of my sources!)This is not an article on the election -- it's about BERNIE SANDERS.---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Lord Aeonian, this is not about the I-P topic. Whether that issue, or Bernie Sanders, I use credible sources, lots of them. Nor do I, on any issue, reject relevant edits that are documented. (Arisboch flatly, and repeatedly, announced he "doesn't do" sourcing.) In any event, this is about the integrity of the Bernie Sanders page. That all said, I may agree with you on this "regressive left" thing, depending. God knows I find Typhoon's gender-is-all myopia annoying.---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Credible like Goodman? You fought to include that too. If Nate lost his credibility because of Michigan then you lost yours the moment you added quotes from Goodman without checking if he isn't a crank. Typhoon (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No Typhoon, You eventually offered commentary from Goodman that convinced me he was unreliable, and as soon as I read it I immediately said you were right about that. Immediately. That's what reasonavble people do Typhoon -- when they err, they don't defend their position to the death. They abandon their wrong belief or bad source. Which is what I did vis-a-vis Goodman. Had you been Owlman, or many others, I'd have taken the objection seriously sooner. But your typical behavior here demonstrates why I initially blew off your objection to Goodman.---Mona- (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. Many people, not just Krugman, made fun the claims that Hillary can only win in "the Confederacy". I could quote any of them instead of Krugman, but then you'd just find a way to smear them too. Every bit of mocking Sanders and his fanatics as of now receive is deserved, as they still delude themselves thinking they can win the primary race, despite nothing but more loses waiting for them (so much for "MOMENTUM"). And we don't need every blockquote that uncritically felates him and his "MOMENTUM", not when they're now pretty much repeating themselves. You say it's not about the election, yet everything you add is about his "momentum", and that will not last beyond the primary race. Any claims to otherwise are nothing but crystal ball reading. Also, since you're so desperate do add mentions of Sander's fans refusing to vote for Clinton here's some fun exit polls: 33 percent of Democrats were concerned or scared about a Clinton presidency. That number was 38 percent for a Sanders presidency. Furthermore, 14 percent of Democrats said they wouldn’t vote for Clinton in November. Meanwhile, 18 percent of Democrats said they wouldn’t vote for Sanders in November. I don't expect you adding the whole picture any time soon. Typhoon (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Look Typhoon, the guy has gone from a nobody to a serious, even shocking, challenge over the past year, winning many primaries, and with polls repeatedly showing he beats GOP candidates better or at all over Hillary. How in the name of God is that not relevant on the Bernie Sanders page?! How is the unusually high percentage of his supporters who will not vote for his opponent not relevant? How is his being widely viewed as indicative of major political realignment not relevant on the Bernie Sanders page?---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
are you intentionally ignoring the parts that say that more people are unwilling to vote for Sanders? Typhoon (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have temporarily locked the Sanders article to mod-only. I don't give a shit about who wins this edit war (there'll undoubtedly be another one in a few days), but my RC was getting clogged with all these stupid reverts and reverts of reverts and reverts of reverts of reverts ad infinitum. You guys need to talk this out (preferably on the relevant talk page) and then we might add something to the article. Clear?--JorisEnter (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

JE, it is unhlepful "not to care" who "wins." There's too much of that at this wiki. It absolutely matters who is being reasonable and who is not. As with Sorte Slyngel, or Arisboch and often Avenger, on many issue Typhoon simply cannot be clamly or rationally engaged. I tried. And really JE, who is this "we" you write of?---Mona- (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever thought that if you keep getting into edit wars with all of those people, then maybe, just maybe the one who can't be "calmly or rationally engaged" is you? Typhoon (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly, but I've considered what I can do to prevent participating in edit wars. Some eidtrs, suchas Sorte Slyngel, Arisboch, Avenger, and YOU on some issues, simply cannot be reasoned with. When that happens, I feel strongly that moderators should indicate that reverting for unreasonable reasons, and not engaging in reasonable negotaition, is unacceptable. On a few occasions I've let a sense of emabattlement overtake my judgment (I've never said I'm entirely blameless), but this is decidedly not one of them.---Mona- (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, Mona, let me try to compromise again. I think that you should add the section praising him on reinvigorating the left, working class, young people, et al to the "moving the party left" with statements by Joe Biden and other politicians/political analysts since even if he loses he will have a lasting effect. The Krugman criticisms should go to Paul Krugman's page on him since, ironically, he is slipping into a VSP position. You should add articles criticizing his condescending attitude and any misreporting (I am sure Taibbi and Salon have some articles on this).--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 21:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Also any polling data and opinion pieces about either candidates's viability should go under a section on electability on the 2016 dem nomination since the media has made that a major circus.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 21:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Owlman, why don't we just take the whole reference to Krugman out? But if he stays, it simply is true that many politically active people have been mocking his Sanders dissing all through the campaign. Is that not relvant to the Bernie Sanders page, if Krugman is to be included at all?---Mona- (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Well sure it is relevant to Sanders, but the man has questioned universal healthcare and used the classic "How are you going to pay for it" line that the right wing loves. This kind of criticism shows how Krugman has devolved into a VSP which is something more relevant to his page.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
can we mention the link I posted abov that gives a whole picture of who refuses to vote for which candidate? Typhoon (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon, I saw nothing at Kos showing that more people won't vote for Clinton than won't vote for Sanders. I mean all people, not just Democrats.---Mona- (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Mod hat thingy[edit]

All I want is people to fill out the form:

Mona's version:Typhoon's version: Radically decrease the amount of blockquotes. Cut down the amount of partisan sources from "activists". All of this would be a tremendous imporvement.


Once it's filled out, I'll set up a voting section for each relevant difference. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. Exactly what do we do? Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted the editwarring parties to actually compare their edits, and figure out what RW agrees with. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 00:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree equally with both versions. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:25, 25 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
Um, I don't think this is the way to resolve matters. Owlman has said he agrees with the stuff about Sanders and a movement to the left. Seems to me interested parties can tackle this one by one, if Typhoon will do it that way. She should have to state reasonable objections to a desire to delete over 5k words of supported text.---Mona- (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanders Blamed his lost in 16 states on poor people not voting, despite Clinton winning big in southern states with some of the lowest median incomes in the USA, and northern states with vast inequality, including New York. Sanders also yet again redefined his goal; now it's a quest to increase voter participation. Yet, right now it's at 11.7 percent, which is way behind the 20 percent in 2008 when Obama ran against Clinton, or the 17.3 percent in the republican primary

But Sanders' most outlandish claim was his insistence that he still has a "path to victory", so all the poor people better continue sending him money!

David Plouffe, a former top advisor to Obama Criticized Sanders for this: "Sanders has run a stunningly strong campaign fueled by passionate supporters. But raising $$ stating you have path to nomination is fraud."

Sanders responded with an ad hominem, claiming he's only saying that because he supports Clinton, and ignored the message that he has zero chance to win the nomination and instead claimed that his intention is to "give the Californians a chance to voice their choice by voting". Whether he really cares about what the voters think is doubtful, since his staff was already loud in their claims that they're prepared to persuade the Superdelegates to back Sanders even if he loses the popular vote. Power, and the chance to gain it, is an intoxicating substance. It's also interesting that Sanders suddenly cares about giving the voters a voice when he and his fanboys dismissed the votes from Southern states, even you, mona, inserted attacks claiming that their votes don't matter in the GE. Was it because they dared to vote against him?

Mona, this article right now reads like a pamphlet written by Sanders himself. Any criticism, like the one I mentioned above, is whitewashed and in its place are spammed links to "political writers", "activists", links to Salon and any other person or group that is supporting Sanders in a blatantly partisan way. Sometimes I get the feeling I'm reading propaganda. And when someone with even the mildes criticism is quoted, you immediately proceed to smear him. But two can play this game, and I'm prepared to give the same treatment to all the Sanders cheerleaders you spammed over the article; Until you concede that we should strive for neutrality, and not opinion pieces written in magazines.

A huge problem with this article, thanks to all of your quotes from pro-Sanders "activists", is the rampant wild predictions and speculation being treated seriously. There's no proof yet that Sanders and his "momentum" will have any effect, or even be remembered by November. This article is filled with wishful thinking and hype, all of which so far failed to increase the voter turnout to the levels from 2008, failed to gain a majority of votes for Sanders, failed to give Sanders votes from racial minorities, and most importantly, failed to defeat Clinton, in Fact his loss is much larger than Clintons' in 2008.

And regarding your complaint that I've removed 5k words of text, you've previously removed tons of my text, and even justified it by saying that what I've written was "too long" and "overtaking the article". But your latest blockquote spam is OK? Of course it is. Anything that is 100 supportive of Sanders is allowed to break your own rules. Typhoon (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to all of your post but he wasn't wrong about poor people not voting. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying the South is more conservate and that is why they didn't vote for you, but the South is still important and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. You can also criticize someone for voting against their interests but you should know why they might do that. Lastly, you can blame voter turnout on the recent voter suppression Republicans have done and the general apathy as well.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you're still wrong, and your faulty reasoning is an example of why Sanders is heavily losing with black voters

Sanders is wrong. The people voting in Southern primaries aren’t "conservatives" in any meaningful sense. They aren’t electing conservative or Republican lawmakers, and they aren’t driving the conservative politics in those states. They are moderate to liberal Democrats who back moderate to liberal politicians. And they’re black, which is significant. Black voters aren’t just palette-swapped white ones; they have interests and concerns that are specific to themselves and their communities. They are experienced and sophisticated voters. Some support Sanders’ ideological pitch, but others don’t and are looking for something else—from ties to the black community to experience to support for Barack Obama—that they don’t see in Sanders.

Typhoon (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I mean that there social views are more conservative.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 17:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
That's... intolerably smug. Black folk with more conservative or moderate social views are necessarilly voting against their interests ? What ? Has it occured to you that maybe they disagree with you (and with more liberal blacks) about where their interests and society's lie ? They might be more conservative, but they're still Democrats all the same: if Bernie can't find a way to appease the more conservative Democrats of the South and Hillary can, then that's a fault of Sanders', not Hillary. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to remove them from the Democratic party or say that specifically black folks are more conservative but that the South in generally is more conservative which is what Sanders said. He lost both the white vote and black vote in the South. I also didn't say that Sanders was right and, on the contrary, linked to a story that stated how important the South is for radical change in the US. Lastly, what is wrong with saying someone is voting against there interest because I hear Northern liberals say that about poor Southern whites all the time.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 23:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It's wrong because it's infantilizing ? Because, when you say that, you imply that they're too dumb to know what's right for them ? NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ignorance is a problem in politics and people are inherently irrational. Not everyone can know the policies of every candidate so I don't see how it would be wrong to say that someone will be hurt them. I think that someone must take into account the loyalty people have like African Americans did to the Republicans. I don't blame teachers, African Americans, students, and women et al. who the Democrats have historically helped but have supported mass incarceration, charter schools, and austerity. The same can be said about poor whites who support Republicans who bust unions, cut welfare, and deregulate businesses because the Republicans appeal to their fears and they have felt abandoned by the Democrats.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 00:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it's of course completely impossible that poor people could be in favor of small government, or that teachers and students could actually be in favor of charter schools, or that African Americans could be in favor of more conservative crime policies (as they were back when the crime bill was passed), or that women could actually be pro-life out of philosophical reasons. No, if they don't have the exact same set of beliefs and ideals as you, they /must/ be deluded and irrational, and the only reason why they wouldn't vote exactly as you do /must/ be because they're manipulated - genuine libertarians and conservatives apparently don't exist. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, yeah. It is possible. It's just that very few actually believe that. I think Hillary supporters are mostly loyalists out of sheer tradition, and don't think for themselves too much. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Cutting welfare or busting unions has nothing to do with small government. I never said conservatives or libertarians don't exist but voters don't study the effects of policies. I personally know teachers who hate charter schools but support Clinton who supports charter schools. Democracy isn't about rationality it is about accountability.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 01:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does ? What is government welfare, aside from something that makes the government bigger ? It allows government to take taxes from the people and distribute it in the way it sees fit: you can't exactly choose whether or not you pay taxes (contrary to charity), because if you don't some very cross men in nice clothes will knock on your door. As for busting unions: that more or less depends on whether or not you believe unions are correct in what they do or ask. I believe it's a (very) mixed bag. Also, you don't have to study the precise effects of a policy to know whether or not you support it in principle.
Why do you keep abusing question marks? Also, the government is going to tax people in order to provide a service like building roads and sewers but conservatives would never call that welfare. Taxes collect unearned capital gained from an individual gaining wealth from collective services. You can argue that there shouldn't be a government but you would still need multiple people to contribute to a project in order for it to be created. If you have regional run healthcare and regional run public roads that would be a "small government". Busting unions would require giving the government the power to crush an organization which creates a "big government". Yes, you do need to know how a policy affects you even if you support its end. Right now PA wants to tax soda, a regressive tax, in order to pay for universal public education; I may support universal public education but a regressive tax would take more of my wealth then it would from a wealthier family.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 02:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Owlman, give one, simply one instance of Republican "voter suppression" in a Democratic primary election? Or for that matter, a reason why Republicans would want to stop Democrats from choosing a nominee? Better yet, tell just what the fuck exactly a Republican is, since the headlines are screaming the death of the Republican party everyday. Please, just stop letting us all know how very little your understand of the American political system. All your ranting about Republicans amounts to his hate speech, pure in and simple. nobsDump Trump 04:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Isn't that why both Democratic nominees are suing Arizona? I am not sying that the Republicans are trying to prevent a certain Dem nominee but voter ID laws suppress the vote. Also, I don't think I have been particularly hateful towards the Republicans. Usually when I talk about Republicans and Democrats I am referring to the politicians.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 05:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but you've provided ZERO evidence of "Republican voter suppression". The Republican party is not the State of Arizona. The Republican party is not the Supreme Court. AZ Dem party complains about a Supreme Court ruling, not GOP voter suppression. Good. They'll have their day in court, where they'll probably loose again. As to Arizona state law, if ID is required in a state party primary election mandated by state law, it would be to preserve the rights and integrity of the Democrats presidential preference choice, and to keep out non-Democratic voters, Republicans for instance, as masquerading as Democrats to disrupt their process. And Republicans simply have too few voters right now to crossover and vote in Democratic primaries given their own internal problems. Your rhetoric is inflammatory, racial charged, without foundation, and intended to sow discord and confusion when Arizonians and Americans are working right now to find real solutions to very real problems. nobsDump Trump 15:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, Republican states have supported these measures despite any evidence of fraud. This has harmed many minority voters. I agree that the US voting system needs a massive overhaul with action by Congress and that not every Repulican supports voter ID laws.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Wrong again, and extraneous. You are still confusing a citizen's right to vote in a General Election with participation in a private party election. You have no more "right to vote" in a primary than a right to vote in an Elks Club election, a labor union election, or for the Board of Directors of Microsoft. You links are irrelevant to this discussion -- one would hope a Republican party primary would "skewy" democracy for Republicans, as one hopes a Democratic primary skews democracy for Democrats. These are intraparty contests, not an election where voters are being asked to choose one party over the other. No wonder some voters get confused, listening to non-sensical crap like you've posted which has nothing to do with the choices people are making now. nobsDump Trump 00:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I have confused the primary/caucus voting general election voting. But isn't it still a problem that so many voting places were closed in Rhode Island and Arizona even if there isn't an intention to suppress voting rights?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 01:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Ok, locally here we had the same thing in the last General Election, a Democratic city election clerk shut down polling sites used in previous elections in a heavily Republican town (Rio Rancho NM). Gov. Susana Martinez personally showed up at the one site remaining to encourage people to stand in line until 11:00 PM. Was it a politically motivated by the city clerk to suppress the vote among Republicans? Probably. In Arizona, as I understand, the Democratic mayor makes similar charges against a Republican con trolled Maricopa County, in a primary election. I'm not familiar with the Rhode Island case. But alleged "voter suppression" in a primary is not by any means the same as violating a persons constitutional rights is a General Election (incidentally, for the charges over the years, how many people have actually ever been convicted?). My guess, in both the Arizona & Rhode Island cases partisans make some kind of B.S. charge about primaries to fire up their base for the General Election. Look, some primary caucus do not even use any kind of paper ballot, simple a show of hands or voice vote. How fair is that to the loosers compared to Arizona & Rhode Island. So charges of "suppression" in a primary are virtually meaningless, partisan, and bullshit. It is crossover voting which is more of a concern to poliymakers on both sides of the isle, at least honest ones, cause both sides have their partisans who encourage such things. nobsDump Trump 01:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, what happened in Rhode Island was that 2/3 of the polling places were closed due to budget cuts and people didn't realize they had to bring identification with them since Rhode Island had recently passed voter ID laws. I agree that a lot of the voter fuckery is bipartisan like gerrymandering, restrictions on third parties, and budget constraints. M main problem with all this primary/caucus voting is that there is no uniformity to it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 03:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the best source I've come up with to understand current issues, from the Brookings Institute. About 22 pages, well worth the read. But note no Congressman, Senator, President, or party has made it their program for the Feds to get involved in what is a private & state function. If they did, it would be viewed as such a massive intrusion into both personal sovereignty and state sovereignty by the Feds, nobody dares go there. Neither party will allow the government dictate to them how to practice their rights of free association. nobsDump Trump 05:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As for this Clinton thing: supporting a political candidate has to do with more than their policy. It's a combination of what their character is, who they supported, who supports them, their experience, and overall who you'd think'd be the best for the job: it's actually quite rational, but you have to look at the bigger pciture. You'll also never aggree 100% with a politician's proposal, but well, that's what being an adult means. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

So you have to support a candidate you don't agree with because that is "being an adult"; congratulations on being condescending. I realize women, especially older black women, support Clinton because they want to break the biggest glass ceiling and that Africans Americans were humanised and had the White House opened up to them by Bill Clinton but that doesn't mean those politicians hold all their interests. Now, those voters can disregard that but you can still criticize them for it. If voting is so rational then why are people most likely to vote for insurgent candidates when IRV is implemented then when FPTP is implemented.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 01:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Accepting compromise means being an adult. I'm not targetting you with this, but you seem to imply that people who hate charter schools supporting someone who's in favor of them is irrational when it's really not - you have to look at the bigger picture, factor in other things than simply the propositions they do. I never pretended that Clinton holds "all the interests" of women and blacks: but again, not everyone will agree (in fact, no one will) on what "their interests" precisely mean, and even people with exactly the same endgame are unlikely to agree completely with how to get there - fuck, I don't pretend to know what these interests are myself. People can be rational and wrong in the end, that doesn't make them less rational.
Owlman: Older black women support a corrupt piece of shit candidate because she's a woman? and not because of her reputation or record of fraud and dishonesty? or incompetence? Older black women are that stupid and ignorant to ignore that? Now that is condescending to older black women. nobsDump Trump 03:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeesh that is harsh but I don't see supporting someone who is going to break that "glass ceiling" as particularly irrational. From what I have read older black women overwhelmingly like Clinton but older women in generally like Clinton. People don't seem to hold her corruption against her or at least they don't find it to be a detriment to their vote.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 05:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Different types of voting offer different kinds of representation, plus there's the novelty factor that's likely to attract more folks, especially when the candidate has an aura of "novelty" to him as well... it's five hundred billion factors that you have to consider. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Owl I believe you are misinterpreting. What NFH was saying was that you will never fully agree with a canidate 100%, i have to agree with this, when it comes to presidential canidates you have to take the good with the bad, since your pool is so limited, there will be some things you like about them, and some things you dont, that is what NFH was saying, not that you should vote for candidates you dont agree with. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 02:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that sentiment I do with Sanders. I think NFH isn't seeing where I am coming from when I say there isn't anything wrong with criticizing someone for voting against their interests. A libertarian who criticizes a doctor for advocating for universal healthcare may say that they are going to lower their salary. A conservative who criticizes a liberal businessperson who supports a higher minimum wage will say that their business costs will increase. No one takesinto account every outcome when they support someone.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 02:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
You do not know what their "interests" are. The doctor whose salary will be driven down by universal healthcare might be well aware of that fact but still decide to support it anyway out of principle, the same way the liberal businessman might accept his business costs increasing as a necessary evil in the situation. People will sometimes vote for policies for selfish reasons, that's correct: but there's a also a massive "values and principles" part that comes into play, and you can't go around yelling "why are you voting against your interests ?!" at people, because it's basically refusing to accept that people might vote differently than you because they think it's simply the right thing to do. It's better on a moral and philosophical level that people do that, in fact... NewFrenchHotness (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Depends on the business. If it's things that depend on low wage people as customers (or victims in the case of collectors), yeah they'd like a higher minimum wage. Keep in mind that we do have welfare queens; Walmart and all the other stores that depend on food stamp money. StickySock (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
It also depends on "self interest". Yes, it's in my best interest to have more money and pay less taxes. It's also in my best interests to have a fully functional and funded government to help take care of people in need, make sure products are safe, and enforce regulations for negative externalities. I believe life and health is more important than money so it's more in my best interests, and aligns with my values, to pay $X amount of money now to prevent or mitigate harm we know about and can already do something about. It's also not okay in my value system for people to be able to pay their way out of easily preventable harm while those who can't are harmed (recent example, lead). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@NewFrenchHotness I think we are misunderstanding each other. I agree that it is condescending to say that someone is voting against their interests but I think it is a fair question to ask. I think that it is unnecessarily divisive for a candidate to say that people don't support them because they are voting against their interest but I think it is fair for a political analyst to evaluate why someone might support a policy that may be "against their interests" in their mind. Identity politics has always been important in an election but people are going to vote for people who agree with them in some way. With my early example there may be women who want a $15 minimum wage but support Clinton because they want to break the glass ceiling even though she wants a 12 dollar minimum. I think leftist fail to realise how much the Democrats have done to protect women, racial minorities, and LGBT people even if they supported DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and mass incarceration.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 14:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Voting against interests[edit]

Owlman wrote: " I agree that it is condescending to say that someone is voting against their interests but I think it is a fair question to ask. " I could not disagree more. It's simply a fact that this happens, and many, many people have long done this. My own grandmother -- who was a liberal, FDR Democrat -- voted for Reagan and GOP senators because of abortion. I am quite prepared to say she voted against her interests. Further, I am prepared to say that the GOP has been, for decades, masterful at getting working-class whites to vote against their interests by exploiting their social conservatism and shallow, sentimental patriotism.

When it comes to blacks, the age gap shows up in this election also with them, just not as starkly. Black Lives Matter activists, who tend to be younger, are far more likely to be for Bernie Sanders. But they are high-information voters. Older blacks tend to follow the older generation of civil rights leaders, who are well-invested in the rewards of the Establishment, and most of whom have endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, Michelle Alexander persuasively argues that blacks are rightfully predisposed to follow their leaders, it is just that in this case those leaders are preponderantly letting them down. Alexander also has made perhaps the best case for why blacks should not vote for Hillary Clinton. Alexander is a lawyer, and a very fine legal scholar. She's written one of the most important books I've read in several years: The New Jim Crow.---Mona- (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

"Bill Clinton did some stuff, hence Hillary bluh bluh bluh bluh bluh" Yeah, nice try. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)