Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 10 August 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

Too much like a newspaper article.[edit]

Too much of this is written in way which reflects the present situation - especially the sections "2016 presidential bid" "Minority voters" and "Moving the party left".

As long as they exist they will necessarily need to be constantly updated as the news changes. This happens occasionally with articles. It's often Proxima who starts live-blogging something into articles and after it's all over the stuff has to be removed. I seem to recall it happening with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons and Innocence of Muslims. It also happened with Ebola (though that wasn't Proxima) and the section Ebola Insanity probably still needs to be cleaned up a bit.

The thing is that the wiki articles really aren't the place for live coverage of events. It's really something for someone's personal blog.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we are going to have to remove a lot of the info. I think that his progress in the race should be changed to how he set an unexpected challenge but ultimately failed to build a coalition like Obama did.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 12:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see that I failed to make that point clearly. All this minutia builds up which one individual or another thinks is really important to some argument they are having in their heads at the time - but sometime after the election it will mostly get zapped down to "Saunders made an unsuccessful bid for the Democrat Nomination in 2016".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an entire guideline how to deal with articles that are "current events". Of cource, the best thing to do is to decrease the amount of direct quotes from Salon and other opinion tabloids, in order to make this page read less like a newspaper article. I've already removed the most blatant examples. Typhoon (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we should be paraphrasing not addong massive block quotes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 15:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I still think it's funnier than shit to see a 74 year old man tottering behind a podium with a sign that reads, "A Future You Can Believe In." What's he pitching, God and the afterlife? nobsDump Trump 15:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably not, he's secular.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 16:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think most people, if not everyone, believe "Feel the Bern" is his official campaign slogan.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 16:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
They should bring back Bob Dole pitching Viagra and use that as their slogan, "A future you can believe in". nobsDump Trump 16:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I use some blockquotes in every article I write, but have an intuitive limit on their length. I frequently have reduced the length of others' quotes at various, non-controversial articles. That all said, quotes have their place. As long as they don't substitute for actual writing by we editors, but rather enhance, they are fine. Opinion pieces are often indicated, especially in sociological or political articles. This site has a viewpoint, and there is nothing wrong with buttressing that with respectable others. Finally, Salon is a mixed bag. A good deal of it is bullshit, but some very smart people have written there, and some still do. A list of everyone who has published there would find a lot of people who respected and admired widely, including by many here.---Mona- (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It's one thing to have a viewpoint, it's another thing to shamelessly evangelize like you do. This article suffers terribly from your "enhancing", because of your extreme emotional investment into Bernie. Typhoon (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes we do have a POV "and that point of view is that the scientific method and the information gained from its application is better than almost anything else humanity has come up with". We do not have a political POV beyond this - though, of course individual editors tend to try to add them.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Bob, the scientific method entails empiricism and facts determined by valid empirical methods. Facts are. Polling data is one of those facts that are, especially when it involves multiple polls and meta-polling from reliable polling sources. Also, this site has a "snarky point of view." Which means editors may ridicule these who are non-fact-based, and/or who largely rely on discredited sources.---Mona- (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
My point is that our POV is scientific - not political. As far as snark is concerned - I'm not seeing much Saunders snark in the article.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The lingering effect Sanders has on shaping young people's views (say, under 30) is something they may carry for years afterward. We've seen this in the cases of Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, and Gary Hart. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 06:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Statements unsupported by sources.[edit]

Mona uses [1] to source "as of May 2, 2016, polls(emph mine) were showing Hillary Clinton losing to Trump."

This appears to be a falsehood, as the article says "This poll differs from recent polling, which all show Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, holding a lead over her Republican counterpart." I don't see how this one poll, which the source says is an outlier, can support multiple "polls" saying something. In fact, I think it's disgusting that Mona would repeat such a lie.

Mona uses [2] to support "but(emph mine) Sanders decisively beating him," as if that poll is contrasting - but it's not. That poll is accompanied by a Clinton-Trump poll that shows HER decisively beating Trump as well. I don't see how this site, which says both defeat Trump, can support the only Bernie defeats Trump "but." In fact, I think it's disgusting that Mona would repeat such a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Psst. He hasn't polled over her except for that one outlier since February. [3]. Please cherry-pick that Feb poll. Hipocrite (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I note now that Mona's next attempt to include the one poll as "polls" has her linking to [4] and [5] as two different polls. Guess what - SAME POLL TWICE. I think it's disgusting that Mona would repeat such a lie. Hipocrite (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I did use two different sites that apparently cite the same poll on the one that shows Clinton losing to Trump. I apologize for that. And, I agree, that until I locate the other polls I have seen, it should be "poll," singular not plural. (I will make it singular.) But the fact remains, that Sanders has consistently, through today, more decisively beaten Trump in polls.---Mona- (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
You wrote "It is true. I can get more polls if u like." Do it. Hipocrite (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I shall. In the meantime, my current edit is true, and therefore should stay. All polls, and meta-polling results, show Sanders consistently stronger against Trump than Clinton is.---Mona- (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's what they don't show - "polls," and "but." Don't reinclude those or you're lying again. Hipocrite (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Mona writes "Sanders decisively beating him more strongly and never losing." Linked from her source - [6] "If the candidates for President next time were Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump, who would you vote for? 46% Hillary Clinton, 43% Donald Trump ... If the candidates for President next time were Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Donald Trump, who would you vote for? 41% Bernie Sanders 43% Donald Trump." A questionable relationship with the truth, has our Mona. Hipocrite (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I Do. Not. Lie. I made an error in citing the same poll twice. I'm looking through my Twitter TL for the several such polls to find more I know I have. In the meantime, it's absurd to keep reverting my truthful description of the polling by screaming "Liar!" when every poll, and their aggregates, keep showing Sander utterly stomping Trump, with Hillary much tighter, and one even losing. That is a simple fact.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Mona, you wrote that Bernie ALWAYS outpolled her and ALWAYS won. Both false. Try not to make shit up. Hipocrite (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

In polls going up against Trump, Bernie does always win more strongly since last year.---Mona- (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So, look, that's a strong statement of fact. How do you feel about [7], which pretty much puts the lie to your strong statement? Hipocrite (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you not understand polling and question-framing? An (as far as I can tell) undated Huntington Post straw poll does not measure who beats Trump more decisively. I mean reputable academic or professional pollsters.---Mona- (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I reverted this: "except for polls conducted in September, October, November, January and February.<ref></ref>" It doesn't show Sanders not beating Trump better than Clinton does.---Mona- (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Not a straw poll. Citation shows polls in those months that have trump beating sanders. Plz stop making things up. Hipocrite (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hipocrite, this is Huffington Post polling. Who the hell are they in the polling profession?---Mona- (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Please provide, Maris, Zogby, Gallup, Pew or some entity that is a professional pollster. ---Mona- (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
You are truly incompetent. Follow the link I provided. Click on the "source" button. Get to I mean, really. Come on. Hipocrite (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Please post -- here -- the link that shows all those months in which Sanders did not more decisively beat Trump than Clinton did. Thanks.---Mona- (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC) scroll down to all the polls Sanders loses to Trump. Hipocrite (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Sanders received almost no attack ads from the GOP, trying tu use current polls to predict how he'll fare against Trump is absurd. And Nate and many others who work with polls agree. This is just another example of Mona's constant cheerleading for Sanders. Typhoon (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, Trump v. Sanders polling is completely fucking irrelevant because Sanders will never (and was never going to) win the Dem nomination. You might as well try and build an argument against Clinton on the basis of polling for Trump v. Superman or Jesus. Robledo (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


I thought it weird that, during the "bird incident", Sanders described it as a relevant "symbol of peace" even though he does not seem to be particularly pacifistic.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think Nate Silver is biased...[edit]

Shouldn't you debate that here? (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevada incident[edit]

The incident is basically what happened in '68. It is anger at the party not blind support for Sanders that caused this.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 12:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 12:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not blind support? Read the entire letter before reverting. Typhoon (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Cool. The BernireBro narrative was that they were sexist and/or racist white men.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 13:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you're determined to repeatedly prove to me that you have no intention to read the letter. Typhoon (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

There is zero reason to ignore the Nevada threats and violence by Sanders supporters. It's being talked about in the media all over the country. Owlman is now engaging in vandalism. Typhoon (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't being ignored. That section is about "BernieBros". What happened there was anger at the party. If we add this we have to add other protests Bernie supporters have done and that is irrelevant; you were the one who edit warred with Mona in order to remove links about Clinton being protested by BLM supporters.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 14:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This isn't comparable at all. There were previous violent attacks from Berniebros (like that one time they attacked Trump supporters). But this one is the first to end with a strongly worded complaint against Sanders campaign. There is absolutely every reason to include this as a horrifying example of what some of his more unhinged supporters are capable of. Typhoon (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, totally just Sanders supporters. Again, you continue to whitewash neocon support for Clinton and those policy wonks have helped kill people.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 14:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the Bernie Sanders article, dumbass. I'm not whitewashing here anything. Typhoon (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh insults. Well, you have complained about me whitewashing while you did the same.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 14:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Insults? Dude, you were the first one to imply I'm pro helping to kill people. Typhoon (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
How so? They supported wars that killed people and you are removing refs about their support for Clinton. I don't believe you are removing those sources because you support tjeir ideology or war.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 14:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, nothing you're saying right now has anything to do with the Bernie sanders article. Is this because you realize you've failed in your attempt to erase the Nevada fighting and are now grasping at straws? Typhoon (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Read the letter already. Typhoon (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

So besides completely removing the narrative about "BernireBros" you now want me to believe that the Sanders campaign used "shock troops".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm only adding what was said in Nevada. Typhoon (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

So now the letter is "vandalism"? Are you serious? Typhoon (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to remove info you supported about Berniebros. Removing that is vandalism and I will treat you as such.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
WHat are you even talking about. You're removing the entire section about Nevada. Do you understand the concept of "updating" info. Tha's what I did when I added this. Typhoon (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
"Updating info" doesn't involve deleting an unrelated section.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That section is related. It's comletely out-dated due to the recent events in Nevada. Typhoon (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Why is it, since Trump alleged it was Sanders goons disrupting & sparking violence at Trump rallies (although media reported Trump supporters were inherently prone to violence), there have been no reported incidents of violence at Trump rallies, AFAIK. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 03:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, Trump did allege that Sanders was sending agitators but here is a list of violent incidents. Anyways, Trump has openly encouraged violence but, luckily, most of that violence has been fairly mild. I would say that the violence subsided when Trump gained a significant led over his opponents.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 04:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
That's one theory; here's another: Trump has the resources to give credence to his allegations if he were challenged or it needed to be pursued. 04:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
How so?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 04:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Trump was able to communicate personally (him, not surrogates & lawyers) that (a) he rented the venues; under the law, you do not have the right to go disrupt, say, a wedding reception held in a public place; (b) Trump offered to pay legal defense for people who were victimized by outsider persons who came to these sites with the intent to disrupt. Looks to me (and personally I don't think Bernie or his top advisers were involved) that these non-Trump supporters (who evidently were not Hillary, Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich supporters got smart real quick, grabbed their testicles in hand, and ran the other way. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see. I orginally thought you were saying that there was a more direct intimidation tactic going on. Your theory does make sense to me, though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 04:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This just across the newswires: "Defiant Sanders..." and "a senior Sanders aide — on the eve of the Nevada convention — encouraging the senator’s supporters try to “take over” the convention, change party rules and continue the “revolution”... So it's pretty obvious this mainstream source is full of Clintonites and will distort facts to impugn and slander people's reputations. All this is gonna boomerang on the Clintonites. Frankly, people are beyond tired of their smear campaigns they've waged. If tghe Clinton's want to take this to November, their names will essentially be synonymous with excrement, shit, doo-doo, whatever, eternally. That's what is in the cards. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 04:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Let's remove the entire section after Berniebros finally go to overdrive in Nevada. For the longest time they were all "where's the proof" and now that we got some proof it's suddenly not OK to talk about it. Typhoon (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

No "proof". All you have is a letter from a lawyer who accuses Sanders of "planting" shock troops.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Nice cherry-picking. Try harder, there's plenty of stuff in the letter. Typhoon (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
And you didn't cherry pick the CounterPunch article?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm consistent in my loathing of crazy conspiracy "newsites". Whereas the letter is aired on reputable sources. You're grasping at straws. Typhoon (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The Daily Kos and Boing Boing both covered that article. You still haven't removed the CounterPunch link from Ayn Rand's page.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So you want to get into an edit war over the Rand article too? It's a shitty argument to say "we fucked up before by adding Counterpunch, this means we can fuck up again too". I'm not here to fix up all of your mistakes, I'm here to improve the articles for the Dem primary. If you have better sources than Counterpunch, why don't you use them? Typhoon (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I have stated consistently that they are the original source and it is important to cite the original source unless it is a tl:dr articke on a scientific report. You have continually removed other articles related to Clinton's page amd you are removing info on the "BernieBros" narrative.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
It's a crappy source for a non-controversy, and there are plenty others, less biased, you could use. You just insist on Counterpuch because it's hysterically anti-Clinton. And besides, this has nothing to do with the Bernie Sanders article, where you're erasing my updates on the unruly "Berniebros". Old ass articles that pretend they don't exist are completely outdated due to the recent violence in Nevada. Now it's you who's erasing sourced stuff. Typhoon (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
No I don't insist on citing CounterPunch because it is "anti-Hillary"; there are other sources I could use to do that like WSWS. They have criticized Sanders as well btw. BernieBros don't exist and even if they did what happened in Nevada is not what supposedly BernieBros were.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Counterpunch is trash and Berniebros just went ape-shit in Nevada. Impossible to deny that. Typhoon (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Umm, there was an article about Berniebros making sexist remarks towards Clinton online... Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There was an article complaining about "Obama-boys". Back in 2008, have the "Obama-boys" trashed a state so much that Obama got official complaints? It's ridiculous to compare them in light of recent events. Typhoon (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't what BernieBros were.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 16:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual video[edit]

Here is the actual video of the incident which shows that at no point was there actual violence. So the section should be revised accordingly.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 03:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Watched the whole thing. This stuff is fairly common in caucuses & conventions, especially when you have "unseasoned" delegates. Been there on the losing side myself before. Shit, I've been a member of a merchants association where adozens of members would go through votes - although the whole association was controlled by three members who made final decisions. You can't just show up at these things and think you're gonna have influence or take over. You need to learn the game from the inside. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 04:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, how should this be portrayed on his page?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 04:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
A typical caucus cagematch. Rachel Maddow has done whole shows with videos just like this of Louisiana caucuses & Rand Paul delegates allegedly to show whaqt nasty, despicable persons they are. This indeed, is American democracy. The side with more experience wins. The rookie idealists are sent packing. To learn the game, you have to show up in off-year caucuses when no one pays attention, and get yourself elected to "standing committees" to write the rules. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 04:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So in this case, since there is a lack of violence you would say it is not unusual?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. These elections, especially among a younger set w/o the experience, can be emotional. We Americans pride ourselves that these differences of opinion are resolved non-violently. nobsMr. Trump, tear down this wall... 04:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Gotta love how the video description accuses Hillary of "stealing". Anyway, I don't see how is this one short video supposed to disprove that there was violence. There's credible sources all over the news reporting that there was violence such as chairs being throwin from the Bernie camp. Claiming that just because it didn't get recorded on video means it didn't happen sounds like conspiracy talk. In me mean time, Sanders finally issued a statement about the incident (after previously avoiding questions about it in Puerto Rico) and oh boy, it's one of the worst things ever. This mess is blowing into Sander's face and we have a duty to write about it, instead of pretending that nothing happened. Typhoon (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The "reputable" news sources didn't have any videos. The only video of someone picking up a chair was on ABC but he didn't throw it. If you can show me a video of actual violence then I will easily concede.I think is statement is mostly newspeak but he didn't have to talk to that NBC reporter, though, it would be politically wiser.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 01:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

His supporters[edit]

The whole section is going to hell. It was an attempt to talk about Berniebros but Mona added info on politicians who support him. Since then Typhoon hes tried to expand it to include the Nevada incident. All of it is unrelated to him.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevada Democrats filling a complaint against Sanders campaign is unrelated to Sanders. So sayeth teh Owlman. Typhoon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
How about we delete the fucking page? Nuke this and the Clinton page because Mona, Typhoon, nor Owlman nor anyone can handle themselves. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 15:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Good post!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the most compelling reason this section should be nuked is because his supporters aren't going to matter after this election. None of the endorsements, protests, or movements are going to be relevant after the election. Even if he were to become president, his supporters wouldn't be relevant; if his supporters end up becoming a movement, even after a loss, he would become a footnote to their materialization.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 01:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Right now his unhinged supporters and Sander's refusal to rein in them has lead to a huge backlash from both the Democratic party and many in the media. It's ridiculous that we should erase this section just as it becomes more relevant than ever before. Typhoon (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
But that isn't relevant to him. All of this won't be relevant after the election; you can't say he will end up like McGovern and then believe his supporters will be relevant in the future. Sanders can't rein in on them because that isn't what a nominee can do but he has denounced the claims of violence, harassment, racism, and sexism. If we keep this then we have to mention that DWS was a Clinton supporter and that Correct the Record hired astroturfers and none of that belongs on their page.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 18:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Omfg. This is my personal favorite argument for culling political topics. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 15:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, because the Democratic primary goes non-stop. This will totally not cease once Sanders inevitably drops out. Typhoon (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Not covering political topics wouldn't avoid this. When you talk about conspiracies related to policy makers you have to talk about the policies they supported or opposed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
no, you don't. Does Snopes need to discuss Clinton's healthcare policies when they discuss the linton Kill Lists? Guess what? NO. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
We aren't Snopes.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Look, policies on LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive rights, etc are going to come up on a wiki that covers these topics. So when we have a page on Bush Jr. we can't just talk about 9/11 trutherism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Nor can we apparently talk about Berniebros losing their minds in Nevada in such a spectacular way that they got complaints from the state Democratic party. Typhoon (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
We're not Snopes, but we do similar things. If the candidate argues for or against "LGBT rights, women's rights, reproductive rights, etc", we can mention those. There's no damn reason to be a half-assed liberal Wikipedia and document the rest. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
So how should we cut down these pages?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 18:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, here. Rule 12 K.1 & (b), p.19 pdf states,

Based on the right of the Democratic Party to freely assemble and to determine the criteria for its candidates, it is determined that all candidates for the Democratic nomination for President or Vice President shall:
(b.) have demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives of the Democratic Party as determined by the National Chair and will participate in the Convention in good faith.

So, that pretty well explains Wasserman-Schulz has determined Sanders has not "demonstrated a commitment to the goals and objectives" of the party.nobs Pat Nixon for President 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Pain Meds[edit]

Why aren't his woo views on pain meds listed in the article? Past statements indicate that he believes opiates are overprescribed for chronic pain, that opiate prescriptions lead directly to heroin addiction, and that doctors should prescribe less pain medication and more "alternative medicine" (yoga, meditation, chiropractors) to fight the heroin epidemic. In essence, people should OHM the pain away. --Castaigne2 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

quite apart from from the obvious alt med stuff, i have read somewhere (i dont remember where) that US dr do overthe prescribe opiates and does impact on heroin abuse. I cannot comment on the validity of such claims, but it didnt sound implausible to me at the time. Is this such a clearly bullshit idea that we can call it woo? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Sanders is using GOP code talk for "cut veterans benefits". And yes, there are more deaths from prescription drug opiates in the US than heroin. Shit, congressional hearings & White House statements were the headlines everywhere for the past month upto about one week ago on this. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
i must have glanced at a head!ine. It does not sound like something that would ordinarily pique my interest. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Physicians are killing American's, not drug dealers. The Dept. of Veteran Affairs is the biggest drug dealer on the planet, bigger than any Mexican or Colombian cartel. And yes, this will be a general election issue, especially considering Obamacare is paying Doctors and the Pharmacuetical indusrty to kill Americans. Go ahead, call it woo or conspiracy thinking, but the White House and Congress are already involved. And look at Big Pharma's donations to Democrats & the Clinton Foundation while you're at it. 00:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Opiates are overprescribed, and there aren't good pill limits. Often simply complaining of terrible pain is enough to get a prescription. Cannabis should be a legal prescription drug for chronic pain, and this would half pharmaceutical opiate addicts. Also, when you run out of your vicodin/whatever and can't get a refill, you have to go to the street for something to satisfy your body's craving: you get heroin (or street pills). This isn't woo, Castaigne! This is the truth! How could you possibly dispute this? Do you think Bernie must be pro-woo and loony moonbatty on science just 'cause he's a liberal? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It's Big Pharma, lobbyists, and the FDA. There's just too much money to be made, Remember how Clinton and the Democrats investigated tobacco ^ gun manufactures? when they threaten to investigate overcharging high prescription drug prices, Big Pharma started forking over the campaign contributions and that was the last u heard of investigating them. nobsTrump/Sanders 2016 07:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I think he's pro-woo because he wants chiropractics and yoga and meditation to replace pain meds. That's what I originally said, anyway.
If he said "Replace pain meds with cannabis oil." and "Yoga and meditation are woo-woo bullshit to replace pain meds with.", I wouldn't have a problem. --Castaigne2 (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Total cannabis (all forms) could probably replace greater than 50% of opiate pain med use in America. Believe me, weed is very good at numbing the pain. Meditation is better at making people concentrate on things other than pain, whereas drugs actually temporarily eliminate your receptors' perception of it. The theory that I back is that meditation can stimulate the release of endogenous opioids in the body, providing a similar effect to pills. Take a look, there's real science behind this theory. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What would be the mathematical effect if all of the superdelegates were required to vote for the winner of their state's primary or caucus?[edit]

Suppose they make that rule change, and Sanders wins California. Who would win the nomination? Mr. V-Man (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Winner take all superdelegates, regular delegates per state rules is your hypothetical? Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on

Clinton has 1769 total won delegates. Sanders has 1501.

Based on and and your conditions

Clinton takes an additional 366 supers, while sanders takes 241, 107 up for grabs.

Thus, Clinton has a total of 2,135, and needs 2,383 to win, a difference of 248. There are 9 contests left, with a total of 781 pledged delegates in the remaining contests, meaning she needs to win 31.8% of the remaining PLEDGED delegates - assuming Sanders wins the majority, and thus the supers in every remaining contest, to clinch. This is an insurmountable lead, and in your scenario as I understand it, Clinton is the nominee. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

What would the result be if all contests had been winner take all? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If all contests were winner takes all, clinton would have 2,328 pledged regular delegates to bernies 942 ignoring any supers and I'm not going to do the math because she would have clinched in the supers - a bit of data-manipulation on does this. Hipocrite (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
So basically, Sanders needs to hope that Clinton gets indicted, so that there will be some chance that the superdelegates will vote for him en masse. Mr. V-Man (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, unless he can convince enough superdelegates that he has a better chance than her but I doubt that since she brings in a metric ton of campaign contributions down ballot and could easily stop that cash flow. Also, unless his pledged delegate lead becomes closer it is doubtful that they would even consider it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 00:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, it's probably not going to happen. The best course of action at this point for Sanders is to finish strong with wins in the Dakotas, Montana, and hopefully Cali, and then use that as leverage to get a very liberal 2016 Democratic Platform that gets more of his supporters to back Clinton in the general. That's what he's resolved to do over the past couple of weeks. Bernie Sanders may not win this round, but what Bernie Sanders represents will live on and come back even stronger in the future, much like the Tea Party movement. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I would rather enter a dissociative state requiring lifelong hospitalization than accept a reality in which Bernie Sanders isn't elected. Mr. V-Man (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Well the only way he can go forward would to either run as an independent, which is hinder by the "sore loser" laws, or to run with Stein as a Green, which is a problem since that aren't on the ballot in every state. Assuming that he could spoil the electoral votes he could get elected through the House but I doubt that since that whole process is even more FUBAR than the primaries/caucuses.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC) 01:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hillary needs to get indicted/assassinated already. Sanders would be the only viable alternative, as Biden would not be able to get enough delegates. Forgive my realpolitik. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Cornel West's Obama-hatred is absolutely relevant, and has been pointed out intensively after Sanders started associating with him. Sanders' hypocrisy in trying to remove people from the committee for being "biased" while choosing West was also highlighted. Clinton is winning black voters because she has many times declared that she want to follow in Obama's footsteps, and Obama is INSANELY popular among black voters according to polls. Sanders instead chooses West, who's remembered for campaigning against Obama in 2012, not to mention his incessant pounding on Obama’s skin tone. And now we're not allowed to mention this crucial info about him, and the effect it has on Sander's embarrassing low poll numbers among black voters, and the message he gives to Obama and the Democratic party by supporting this person. Typhoon (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide clear and convincing evidence that support for Cornel West caused his support among black voters to decrease? Until you do, I don't think it's the right idea to claim that in the article. What sources did you produce that show that? You can't produce any! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
There's tons of them if you bother to do even a simple google search. My favorite is this Washington Post piece from January by Jonathan Capehart, titled: "How Cornel West hurts Bernie Sanders"

My problem with Sen. Bernie Sanders and his outreach to African Americans can be summed up in two words: Cornel West. Much has been written about the Vermont independent’s appeal to black voters and whether he can pry them away from Hillary Clinton. And all I can say is good luck with that. I and plenty of other African Americans won’t soon forget the deranged ravings of the revered Ivy League professor against President Obama... Our nation’s first African American president is wildly popular among African Americans. He was elected with 95 percent of their vote in 2008 and 93 percent in 2012. His job approval rating among blacks stood at 91 percent, according to the weekly tally conducted by Gallup and completed the night of the Charleston debate. And that was up six percentage points over the previous week... There is a reason Clinton reminded debate watchers that Sanders openly talked about the need for a primary challenge against Obama in 2012. Clinton knows full well that if there is one demographic group for whom protecting the gains and legacy of the Obama administration resonates it’s African Americans.

Here's also a recent article that outright criticizes Sanders for picking an "Obama-hater" for the committee. Typhoon (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and please try not to write stuff like "You can't produce any (sources)!". That way you can avoid embarrassing yourself. Typhoon (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick way to get some sources, Typhoon. I've updated the article to reflect that West doesn't like Obama. Aren't we done here? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Typhoon, citing opinion pieces aren't proof that West hurts him. Just because blacks in the US overwhelmingly like Obama doesn't mean it is in any way relevant; that is argument ad populum. You not we wants to add that info.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 17:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The opinions of Black Americans aren't relevant? Oh wait, you're a BernieBro, of course you don't care about the opinion of "low-information voters". Typhoon (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
To assume that one black community leader's opinion reflects an entire community is problematic. Even if a majority of blacks hold an opinion it demonizes a minority of blacks who hold an opposing opinion by forcing a "purity tests".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 20:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second[edit]

Who brought up CounterPunch under the section on his military spending record? If this was who I think it was then I am going to have quite the Cheshire grin.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC) 03:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, wow, it took you fucking long to read the stuff you revert. Second, I never linked to Counterpunch, so only a clueless moron would compare it with what you did. Linking a serious source talking about how even trash websites criticize Sanders is not the same as linking trash websites. Typhoon (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If a source is "complete trash" then why bring it up at all? I mean, if Alex Jones criticizes Bush on his violations of civil liberties then why would we put that on Bush's page?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 08:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No, but when a crap magazine that normally pushes a stream of pro-Bernie propaganda is suddenly critical of Bernie is notable. Typhoon (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
BS. CounterPunch has been critical of Sanders before. If they are too cranky to cite then they are too cranky to be mentioned at all.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 20:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon is massively undoing all my edits[edit]

Including a sub-section about Bill Clinton's former Sec'y of Labor, Robert Reich and his Open Letter to Bernie Sanders. She apparently cannot defend any of her rejections of her wholesale reversion, so she's well, just wholesale reverting without comment.---Mona- (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I have temporarily locked both the Hillary & Bernie pages at moderator level. I haven't checked which versions I locked it at, & I don't care. Both sides need to talk it out on the talk pages. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Mona, you erased entire sections just because they were critical of Sanders or his supporters, without giving any reason, while inserting puff pieces. The current article reads like it was written by Bernie's campaign itself. You're also not interested in any talk as you've shown on your talkpage where you showered me with misogynist insults. Typhoon (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I included many reasons in my edit summaries. Now, what are your specific objections? (I will continue to state state my low valuation of you, but not here. That's not what this page is for.)---Mona- (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
You completely rewrote the section about polls. Instead of sourced stuff from Nate Slver, it now reads about "Team Hillary", as if Nate was part of it. YOu trimmed the part about his minority voter problems, while inserting quotes that just read like propaganda. You erased the quote about breast cancer. You erased criticism about him supporting Zionists and his lying about AIDS. You erased the entire section about abusive Sanders fanboys, most likely because you're one of them, and instead inserted more shitting on Hillary that has no place in this article.. You removed the Washington post article that mentioned that the majority of Sanders supporters are fine with voting for Hillary. You will not budge on any of this, because you smeared me with vicious insults on your talkpage and believe I'm some paid Hillary supporter. Typhoon (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Seriatam (and I'm ignoring irrelevant shit about my purportedly inserting"propaganda" & etc).: 1. I gave reasons in the edit summary for removing all the horse-racey primary stuff. It's obsolete. It's time to get to bigger picture material or the article looks like a long live blog. (Moreover, you've already lost an argument about the length of the Silver quote, and I note you made it too long again in my absence. But it's not relevant any more anyway.) 2. The minority section section de-emphasized Michelle Alexander, and the extent of black millennial support for Sanders, and wholly omitted the "big name" African-American Sanders supporters. So, what exactly is wrong with the version as I made it? 3. As I said in the edit summary, that Sanders breast cancer quote is from some 1969 newsletter a young Bernie Sanders contributed to. It was some musing about sexual liberation and completely irrelevant to the current situation. 4. The AIDS material, as I said in my edit summary, is from John Aravosis, who is a Hillary activist and is soundly rejected by many, many other gay people. 5. I don't know what you mean about all that "fanboy" stuff. I do know the whole "BernieBro" thing is bullshit. There's no evidence that Bernie Sanders supporters are any more abusive online than any other cohort on the Internet, including Clinton supporters. 6. I don't disagree that the majority of Sanders supporters will probably vote for Hillary, and I don't recall the exact Washington Post article you think should remain. If you want it explicitly said that most Sanders voters will vote Hillary in the general, that's fine. But there is evidence that an unusually large number of the "loser's" supporters will not vote for the nominee. (Vox is one of my sources, and that is a conventionally Democratic site.) 7. I did not say you are a paid Hillary staffer. I said the opposite to Pb3 who so speculated. 8. My low opinion of you, and contempt for you and your ideology, are not relevant to negotiating article edits.---Mona- (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The primary stuff isn't obsolete. The Hillary article has stuff about her 2008 primary too.
Sanders inability to get black voters is crucial information, which you're removing only because it makes him look bad, and you're an admitted Sanders zealot.
I didn't "lost" the argument about the Nate Silver quote. You just intentionally trim it to remove critically important stuff, again because you're a zealot and you hate seeing anything bad about Sanders.
If it's Okay to insert old Hillary quotes, then it's okay to do the same for Sanders. People ought to know that he wrote crazy stuff about breast cancer. You're again only removing it because it makes Sanders, your idol, look bad.
Sanders was criticized by a group of both Sanders and Hillary supporters in a letter. You instead smear Aravosis, as if that was enough to dismiss the whole scandal, that was aired on many newssites. Your attacks are again because of your vicious zealotry.
The BernieBro thing is properly sourced and not bullshit, especially when you act precisely as a Berniebro would. You removed even the internal email that was criticisig Sanders for his position on the Nevada chaos. This is Orwellian of you.
You don't even bother to look at the Washington Post article you're removing? WTF.
Anyone can look at your talkpage to see the horrible torrent of insults and paranoia from you.
You dehumanizing treatment of me is abhorrent, and is at the center of this mess. Typhoon (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no Typhoon, ranting that I'm acting like a a "BernieBro" and continuing with the nonsense about my purported motives is insufficient. Look, if you really think rambling in a 1969 radical newlsetter about the sexual revolution has any bearing on current maters, there is no reasoning with you.
We had a discussion about the length of the Silver quote, and argued about it. You had agreed to shorten it, and others here agreed it should be shorter. But much of that primary horse-race stuff needs to be pruned to make way for post-primary material, and discussion of the movement that Bernie Sanders is leading. This is the Bernie Sanders article, you do get that, right? It's not the Capmpaign 2016 article.
Now, about the AIDS issue, what, exactly, do you feel is critical to include, and why do you feel that way? John Aravosis is a not-very-bright hack, and not an acceptable source -- this was widely known before the 2016 campaign, and he isn't respected among many progressives, including many gay people. (I'm ignoring the rest that you wrote because it's most irrelevant ad hominems.)---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, you completely whitewashed the supporter section by removing stuff about the Nevada chaos. You have nothing to say for that, so I assume you're conceding that point. If digging up old quotes from Hillary's books is fine then so is quoting Sanders, hypocrite. The part of the Silver quote you're erasing isn't making the article much longer, definitely not as long as the flood of quotes felating Sadners you're inserting. "There is no reasoning with you." I'm taking as another example of you conceding.
The Aids incident has been covered extensively and deserves a place. Your attack on Aravosis are yet another example of character assassination and ad hominems by Berniebros. Sanders was in a letter criticized by both pro-Sanders and pro-Hillary aids activists. You removed that part and are not addressing me when I say that, so I presume you lost that argument too. You won't memory hole Aids activists.
And last, but not least, you're now not addressing or ignoring various other parts of your deletion rampage. Since you refuse to talk about that I'll assume you gave up on those too. If you continue removing things such as his support for Zionists, I'll notify mods about your vandalism. Typhoon (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"June of 32016"?[edit]

Is there a forward slash missing or something?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 04:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

F-35 Stealth Fighter[edit]

"he’s supporting the $1.2 trillion F-35 stealth fighter that’s considered by many to be one of the biggest blunders in Pentagon's history"

Ok, I really don't have a dog in the Sanders race, but this statement is flat out idiotic. To begin with, it's a prime example of weasel words. "Considered by many"? Who are these many? Partisan politicians? David Axe? I'm guessing the person who wrote this reads too much War is Boring. David Axe is a hack and the whole "F-35 is a failure/blunder" meme is, for the most part, devoid of relevant understanding. I usually hear this meme from pundits and armchair strategists with no actual military experience.

Is the F-35 program running over budget and past schedule? Yes, just like most major US military acquisitions. Go look at the F-15's acquisition history. Before some smartass brings up per-unit acquisition costs, keep in mind that a bulk of the costs are incurred during R&D and initial production. As more are produced, the costs come down to those similar to the F-15 and F-16 thanks to economies of scale. To be fair, there have been a number of fuckups in terms of budgeting the F-35 program, but to call it "one of the biggest blunders in Pentagon's history" is nothing short of sheer ignorance. If you want to read more about how full of shit David Axe is, please consult the following blog written by someone with actual military experience:

There are plenty more military members who frequently tear Axe a new asshole when it comes to military hardware. Unfortunately, people love to read bad press, so he keeps getting pageviews.

Furthermore, if someone wants to criticize Sanders about the fact that he supports a major weapons program of the MIC, then that's fine. Just please don't resort to bullshit while doing so.— Unsigned, by: ‎ConnorSimpson / talk / contribs

The sentence that is making you mad is properly sourced from the article in references. Your blog is garbage and is not arguing against the irony of a dove campaigning for the military-industrial complex. Typhoon (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
First and foremost, you either need to brush up on your reading comprehension or read the post in full before replying with a snide, ignorant remark. Second of all, the "source" claiming that the F-35 is "one of the biggest blunders in Pentagon's history" is a DailyBeast article that not only hides behind weasel words for its unsubstantiated statement, but fails to actually provide any reasoning for claiming that its a blunder. The blog is meant to refute this, not discuss Bernie Sanders' support of the program. The fact that you so quickly resort to calling the blog "garbage" while completely missing the point indicates to me that you're more interested in immature, online dick-swinging than you are in actually having a discussion. Also, guess what? I WAS right in my previous post. The Daily Beast article uses David fucking Axe as the basis for claiming that the F-35 is a boondoggle, rofl. David Axe is a hack and there's plenty more testimony supporting that on the internet than just that blog. ConnorSimpson (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you read the above statement? He didn't say that Sanders shouldn't be criticized for supporting the F-35. He said that there are misconceptions about the project's budget.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 09:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Look, he's in the minority. Vermont has virtually no jobs dependent on the military-industrial complex. He votes with Dems & the GOP for a defense boondoggle for states and districts in a bill that's gonna pass, and he gets a return favor later for money for Vermont day cares and post offices in his state. When you're in the minority, you get jackshit, unless you go along to get along. His one vote ain't gonna stop it. Why should he pass up the opportuniy to buy favors for his state? nobsBern baby bern
How is the F-35 a boondoggle? Please don't use David Axe as the basis for that statement. ConnorSimpson (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
See WaPo, How the F-35 boondoggle shows that deficit hawkery is a sham. nobsBern baby bern 17:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That WaPo article is pretty deficient. To begin with, I already acknowledged the budgetary fuck ups. I also pointed out that pretty much every major military acquisition has had similar budget and scheduling issues. If the F-35 is considered a "boondoggle", then most other successful US military hardware platforms have been "boondoggles", as well. Second of all, the technical issues described in that article are over two years out of date. The program is currently in production and despite what clueless online pundits like David Axe would have you believe, the program itself has been successful from a technical and performance standpoint. The F-35 has been built as a stealth platform because air superiority combat has not involved dogfights since the Korean War.
Now, if you want to criticize the program because of the excess porkbarrel and appeals district interests, then that's fair. However, that's an issue that permeates most federal projects and is certainly not unique to the F-35. Again, I don't think that issue alone qualifies the F-35 as a boondoggle. ConnorSimpson (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Well I am not sure if developing the F-35 was necessary. The Army has always been satisfied with the A-10 and drones have changed aerial warfare.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The A-10 is useless in a modern war. The only reason it can operate in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is because of the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. The A-10 is incapable of operating in conflict zones in which air superiority has not been attained, but troops would need air support in such conditions in the event of a conflict against a peer competitor. It is simply too slow to operate effectively under such conditions and modern anti-air capabilities have surpassed its ability to absorb damage.
Drones alone are also insufficient. Drones are not autonomous, nor has technology come anywhere close to allowing them to be. They have someone sitting in a base hundreds (or possibly thousands) of miles away pulling the trigger. This severely reduces both the performance capabilities of the drone in air superiority combat and the ability for the pilot to effectively navigate and perceive a conflict zone. Furthermore, there is also the moral hazard of separating human life from the equation. Drones remove the aspect of "having skin in the game", meaning that politicians or officers might be more inclined to resort to lethal force to solve issues when they would not have if the mission involved a human pilot entering the combat zone.
Drones are going to be highly effective when used in combination with human-piloted platforms rather than operating alone. In other words, you have an F-35 pilot with multiple drones on stand-by to act as additional missile platforms or refueling platforms. The drones increase the missile capacity of the F-35 either by launching them themselves or acting as platforms for reloading missiles onto the F-35. The F-35 and its pilot act as a localized control center that can observe, decide, and act on targets with the support of the drones. Overall, removing a human pilot from the OODA loop is not a good idea.
One final note: if the multi-role stealth platform was such a bad idea, then China and Russia would not be trying to acquire their own analogues to the F-22 and F-35. I think that fact alone is one of the simplest counters to the "F-35 is bad" meme. ConnorSimpson (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Simply because the Pentagon wants or doesn't want something means nothing. The Osprey, Suppercarrier, and Abrams tank are prime examples. nobsBern baby bern 20:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I do agree that the Osprey is a shitshow. I don't agree that the Ford-class Supercarrier is a boondoggle, however. Once again, the complaint raised in that article is about budgeting. I would like to see these journalists actually name a major military project that didn't go overbudget and/or overschedule. Hell, I wish they would spend a day developing software and see just how much of a complete shitshow development of major software systems is. It would really give them a whole new perspective on the complexity, demands, and management of these advanced projects.
The advancements of the Ford-class are very beneficial to the US Navy in the long run. To begin with, the power systems on the new supercarriers are much more efficient, which will significantly reduce maintenance costs in the long run. It also means that the carriers won't have to dock as frequently for servicing. Another fact that goes unappreciated is the fact that the Ford-class ships will have between 500 and 900 fewer crew members. In the long run that is a major cost reduction, not only because less crew has to be supported while at sea, but also because those crew reductions also severely reduce the demand for training more cost-intensive military specialists to operate the ship's systems. Also, McCain is a partisan clown who basically jumps on whatever bandwagon will net him more publicity and Congressional support, regardless of the reasons (or lack thereof) behind said bandwagon.
The problem with the Abrams, on the other hand, is not the platform itself, but the pressure from Congressional porkbarrel to keep it in production even though there is no demand for more. While this is an issue, there is actually a decent explanation behind maintaining production. Shuttering production on a military platform effectively kills the program because it is insanely expensive to restart the program once it's been shut down completely. The plants that produced the platform's components are re-purposed and the technical specialists that worked on the project move on to other projects. In the long run, re-assembling the necessary technical personnel and re-building production facilities costs far more than just keeping the platform in production. This does not mean that porkbarrel isn't a motivation, too, but it's not a simple matter of turning off a switch now and switching it back on later to restart production. I think the issue here is the amount of tanks that are produced. It would probably be possible to only produce at a bare minimum to keep the production line in service, but that would require scaling back production and cutting jobs, which means less government funding going to the state. ConnorSimpson (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The only reason McCain was considered a 'maverick' was because he opposed Majority Leader Trent Lott wanting an unnecessary boondoggle for Lott's home state. nobsBern baby bern 22:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't call him a 'maverick'. I called him a 'partisan clown'. ConnorSimpson (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's talk about tank production for a moment. There never was any demand for U.S. tanks. Tanks were invented in the WWI. American tanks in both World Wars were always smaller and ligh-weight compared to German or Russian competitiors. Even today, they must be smaller and more light-weight. This is because of the cost of transporting them to the battlefield. German & Russian tanks can just roll off the factory assemly line to the battlefield; by contrast, Americans tanks must be either delivered by ship, or by air-transport to the battlefield. Hence, the cost of building ship & airial transport for tanks must be incorportated into the cost of delivering one single tank to the battlefield. Again, because this cost is so astronomical compared to Russian & German capacity to build tanks, tanks never were a strategic weapon or considered a first line of defense. Tanks always were simply (a) cosmetic, and (b) too costly to risk loosing a single one. And finally (c) a jobs program for Congressional districts. The U.S. first line of defense since 1945 has been the nuke. nobsBern baby bern 01:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 07:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm new to Wiki Talk pages and I was using my phone last night, as well. I went back and properly signed my other statements, although it does mess up the time stamps, unfortunately. It now looks like I posted all of the comments today. I hope that isn't an issue.ConnorSimpson (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No problem.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


  • Sanders does not have many endorsements from office-holding members of his party

I propose this should read,

  • Sanders does not have many endorsements from Superdelegates in his party

Can the page be unlocked so as to make the change? nobsBern baby bern 20:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The word "superdelegate" doesn't even appear on the page. We shall Remember in November. What a travesty of justice. nobsBernie bimbos r trailer trash 17:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It is now. Nerd (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Neoliberal, McFeminists not worth energy as we move into post-campaign phase of movement[edit]

"[Hillary Clinton] lost 22 states to a 74-year-old self-described socialist from Vermont running without any support from the national party."
-Frederik de Boer, Washington Post,

This is neoliberalism's last hurrah. I intend to be pounding the nails in it coffin, but won't be chronicling these events here much. Altho I spent significant time defending my edits, first in edit summaries, and then here on the talk page, I'm not going to do too much more of that -- it simply is not the best use of my time. The Democratic Party is going to once again be a party FDR would be welcome in, or it will die, and I will be helping to kill it. That's more important than whether this site reflects what's happening.

Typhoon is a relentless neoliberal hack who will insist on interposing hackery in all pertinent articles even as her corrupt liberalism expires; she cares only that the financial elites allow grrls to sit on their boards and to deliver lavishly compensated speeches, she cares only that the president sending troops to slaughter more brown people is a grrl, she cares about payday lenders preying on the poor only if they aren't supported by a neoliberal vagina. For sick gender-tribalists like Typhoon -- she's a type, and well represents that type -- it's vaginas all the way down. (This moral illness has its analog in the "homofessional," such as John Aravosis, who now loves neoconservative warmongers because they love his warmongering Queen.)

Clinton is going to be the next president (but not with my vote, nor that of many, many others who poured out to support Bernie Sanders, no matter that Bernie will endorse her and has already said he will vote for her). Her putrid sidekick, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for the first time in her career is being strongly primaried, but also is likely to win. DWS -- over the fierce opposition of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Consumer Federation of America -- supported a federal law beloved by the predatory payday-lender industry, an industry that pays into her campaign chest. (Typhoon insanely thinks challenging DWS in a primary constitutes "shitting" on her, and also that I shouldn't approve because her challenger is as bad on Israel-Palestine as DWS is. This level of gender-tribalism with its attendant obtuseness cannot be cured. But it's not going to be with us much longer.)

There are still too many establishment neoliberals alive and voting who let the Reagan right push them into not being willing even to identity as liberals, much less as social democrats. Millennials are so not down with that. Older minority voters also are not listening to the prophetic voices of their young -- but in 5-10 years as these people croak and more voters, both white and minority, join the millennials, this will all change. These oldsters mostly get their "news" on the TeeVee where the elites have always been able to control the narrative; we who are better informed from online venues are about to be dominant.

Do note I'm up there in years myself; I'm familiar with my age cohort, and while a third of us are Bernie and anti neo-liberal, we are not enough. Yet. That's on the verge of changing, and there's some poetry in the big surge this time having been led by 74-year-old man who was dismissed as irrelevant when the depraved neoliberals held sway these past 25 years. They're about to learn what irrelevance really means. And there's not a thing they can do about it but have tantrums, like Typhoon does.

Hopefully it won't entail blood in the streets, because that kind of revolution is neither romantic nor to be desired, so they'd best be getting over their Versailles-in-1785 bullshit, pronto. Unlike the "hippies" who are now so often neoliberals, most young have no future, few good jobs, life-destroying college debt, and a brutal global austerity that's going to keep pushing them into the social democratic legions. The time for peaceful resolution to this great suffering will not last forever.

The DNC Convention, the platform[edit]

Neoliberal asshats are raising an infantile ruckus, but Bernie's in it until the Convention -- because this is not, and never has been, about only the '16 campaign. He's already forced "them" to let him appoint five of the platform committee members, with the fantastic result that Cornel West was able to place the Palestinian cause front and center, and cause Zionists to sputter and squirm. (Watch this video clip that went semi-viral; it is a thing of beauty.) We are going to raise holy hell throughout Hillary Clinton's reign, as she bombs the fuck out of brown people overseas, as she fellates Benjamin Netanyahu, as she worships foreign despots, and as she works against the interests of a vanished American middle class and the increasingly immiserated poor while enriching herself and her wealthy relatives and friends/peers.

Bernie's up there in years, but many more are coming behind him, people who are even better than Bernie is in the areas where he's always been not so good (merely much better than Hillary), such as on warmongering and love-fest with war criminals and civil liberties vis-a-vis national security.

So enjoy this last bit neoliberals, altho it's not going to be all that pleasant because many of us are going to be holding your feet to the fire during your last days in the sunshine. History is going to record you all -- the contemptible Typhoons among you -- as the cowardly captives of greed, war and corruption that you are.

Finally, the opening quote from Freddie de Boer is from his recent op-ed in WaPo. His voice, and other voices like it, can no longer be ignored; our mass is reaching critical, reaching tipping point. I shall also conclude with his words:

To say that Democrats have become a party of the wealthy is simply stating a matter of fact. Democrats have made steady gains with the wealthiest income brackets over the past 25 years. Political contributions from CEOs of major corporations, once dominated by Republicans, have steadily moved towards the Democrats. Political observers like Thomas Edsall and Thomas Frank have been documenting the party’s transformation into the party of an economic and social elite for decades. These changes are epitomized by the Hillary Clinton candidacy, as Clinton — herself a fabulously wealthy woman — has been dogged by questions about her coziness with Wall Street.

All that makes the party’s traditional self-definition of economic populism harder and harder to maintain, given this capture by the wealthy. Could you call Democrats an anti-austerity party? A pro-labor party? A social democratic party? It’s hard to say yes to any of those.

It will revert to being able to honestly answer "yes," or we will kill it.---Mona- (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

We're not all neoliberal, you know? People who weren't following Bernie. Many of us view it as a toxic ideology that he didn't even come close to directly addressing. Not that Clinton was better in any ways. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Further discussion on this should be moved to RationalWiki:Monarail Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Ikanread, yes, there are some for whom Bernie was still not "pure enough." It's true his positions are pretty hawkish -- just not as bad as Hillary's. But yes, there are people I respect in my own circles who could not support Bernie and have instead advocated voting for, e.g., Jill Stein (which I likely will do in the general). ---Mona- (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
financial elites allow grrls to sit on their boards and to deliver lavishly compensated speeches, she cares only that the president sending troops to slaughter more brown people is a grrl, she cares about payday lenders preying on the poor only if they aren't supported by a neoliberal vagina- Mona
Well, gee, that sounds mighty Trumpalo. Or rather, I've heard similar language and sentiments from Trumpalos...perhaps they're your natural allies?
For sick gender-tribalists like Typhoon -- she's a type, and well represents that type -- it's vaginas all the way down. (This moral illness has its analog in the "homofessional,"- Mona
Gender tribalists? I see you've been reading MASTER MILO, Vox Day, and their particular cohorts. It really sounds like you have something against vaginas. Internalized misogyny directed towards yourself, maybe? And homofessional - I'll have to add that to my list of slurs. Might replace homogay as my fave.
to place the Palestinian cause front and center, and cause Zionists to sputter and squirm.- Mona
Sorry, but you do tend towards hyperbole in the worst ways. I couldn't help but make a Warhammer 40K joke.
History is going to record you all -- the contemptible Typhoons among you -- as the cowardly captives of greed, war and corruption that you are.- Mona
Even though I'm not a neoliberal, I'll take that bet.
I bet instead that Clinton's two-term Presidency results in a "new New Deal" while Sanders and his supporters get sidelined and made irrelevant. I'll put $100 on it, real money. Deal? --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Further discussion on this should be moved to RationalWiki:Monarail Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, have to agree there. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
You're so cute when you're mad, Hipocrite.---Mona- (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to do it and battle endlessly with Typhoon myself, but many of my links in my above comment are sources and material I invite others to incorporate into the Sanders article.---Mona- (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So, why do you object to your ranting essay being redirected to RationalWiki:Monarail? --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Further discussion on this should be moved to RationalWiki:Monarail Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, since Mona refuses to respond and refuses to be redirected to her rant page, here's her argument in ROT13 (which makes just as sense)
Actually, screw the ROT13. It isn't funny. THIS is funny!
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Sanders Revolution! By agreement with the Sanders anti-NeoLiberal Revanchists, today the Sandersism Socialist Progressives’ Party and the Sanders People’s Party have presented to you for resolution a notice of motion concerning a “Law for Removing the Distress of Progressive and Sanders.” The reasons for this extraordinary measure are as follows: In August 2015, the DNC seized the executive power by means of oligarchic conspiracy. The Progressives were dethroned, the authorities of Sanders and Progressives removed from office, and thus a breach of the DNC Charter was committed. The success of the revolution in a material sense protected these criminals from the grips of justice. They sought moral justification by asserting that Sanders or his anti-NeoLiberal Revanchists bore the guilt for the outbreak of Trump.
This assertion was deliberately and objectively untrue. In consequence, however, these false accusations in the interest of our former enemies led to the severest oppression of the entire Sanders Progressive movement, and the violation of the assurances given to us in DNC Charter then led to a time of boundless misfortune for Sanders.
All the promises made by the men of August 2015 proved to be, if not acts of intentional deception, then no less damnable illusions. The “achievements of the Democratic Party” were, taken in their entirety, agreeable for only the smallest of fractions of our Progressive, but for the overwhelming majority, at least insofar as these people were forced to earn their daily bread by honest work, they were infinitely sad. It is understandable that the survival instinct of those parties and men guilty of this development invents a thousand euphemisms and excuses. An objective comparison of the average outcome of the last fourteen years with the promises once proclaimed is a crushing indictment of the responsible architects of this crime unparalleled in the history of the Democratic Party.
In the course of the past primary season, our Progressives have suffered deterioration in all sectors of life, which could inconceivably have been greater. The question as to what, if anything, could have been worse than in these times is a question which cannot be answered in light of the basic values of our Sanders Progressivism as well as the political and economic inheritance which once existed.
In spite of its lack of mobility in political feelings and positions, the DNC itself has increasingly turned away from concepts, parties, and associations which, in its eyes, are responsible for these conditions. The number of neo-liberal who inwardly supported the Republican agenda in spite of the suggestive significance and ruthless exploitation of the executive power dwindled, in the end, to a mere fraction of the entire nation.
Another typical characteristic of these fourteen years was the fact that- apart from natural fluctuations, the curve of developments has shown a constant decline. This depressing realization was one of the causes of the general state of despair. It served to promote the insight into the necessity of thoroughly rejecting the ideas, organizations, and men in which one gradually and rightly began to recognize the underlying causes of our decay.
The Sanders Progressive Movement was thus able, in spite of the most horrible oppression, to convert increasing numbers of neo-liberals in terms of spirit and will to defensive action. Now, in association with the other progressive leagues, it has eliminated the powers which have been ruling since August 2015 within a few short weeks and, by means of a revolution, transferred public authority to the hands of the Sanders anti-NeoLiberal Revanchists. On June 24, Bernie Sanders himself gave his approval to this action.
The program for the reconstruction of the DNC and America is determined by the magnitude of the distress crippling our political, moral and economic life.
Filled with the conviction that the causes of this collapse lie in internal damage to the body of our Party, the anti-NeoLiberal Revanchists of the Progressive Sanders Revolution aims to eliminate the afflictions from our liberal life which would, in future, continue to foil any real recovery. The disintegration of the nation into irreconcilably opposite parties which was systematically brought about by the false doctrines of neo-liberalism means the destruction of the basis for any possible community life.
The dissolution permeates all of the basic principles of social order. The completely opposite approaches of the individuals to the concepts of state, society, religion, morality, family, and economy rips open differences which will lead to a war of all against all. Starting with the neo-liberalism of the past century, this development will end, as the laws of nature dictate, in Trumpist chaos.
The mobilization of the most primitive instincts leads to a link between the concepts of a political theory and the actions of real criminals. Beginning with pillaging, arson, raids on the Party treasuries, assassination attempts, and so on-all these things are morally sanctioned by neo-liberal theory. Alone the method of individuals terrorizing the masses has cost the Progressive Socialist Movement more than 350 dead and tens of thousands of injured within the course of a few months.
The Berning of the Revolution, one unsuccessful attempt within a large-scale DNC, is only a taste of what the USA would have to expect from a triumph of this demonical doctrine. When a certain press, particularly outside Sanders, today attempts, true to the political lie advanced to a principle by neo-liberalism, to link Sander’s Progressive uprising to this disgraceful act, this can only serve to strengthen my resolve to leave no stone unturned in order to avenge this crime as quickly as possible by having the guilty parties and their accomplices publicly executed! Neither the Sanders Progressive nor the rest of the world has become sufficiently conscious of the entire scope of the operation planned by this organization.
Only by means of its immediate action was the anti-NeoLiberal Revanchists able to ward off a development which would have shaken all of the USA had it proceeded to its disastrous end. Several of those who fraternize with the interests of neo-liberalism both within and outside of the Democratic Party, motivated by hatred for the Sanders uprising, would themselves have become victims of such a development. It will be the utmost goal of the Sanders anti-NeoLiberal Revanchists to stamp out and eliminate every trace of this phenomenon, not only in the interest of Sanders, but in the interest of the rest of the USA. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It will not lose sight of the realization that, in doing so, it is not the negative problem of this organization with which it is dealing, but rather the implementation of the positive task of winning the Sanders primaries for the good of the United States. Only the creation of a real Progressive Movement, rising above the interests and conflicts of neo-liberals and oligarchs, is capable of permanently removing the source of nourishment of these aberrations of the human mind. The establishment of such a solidarity in the USA in the body of the Sanders politic is all the more important, for only this will make it possible to maintain friendly relations with the non-Sanders powers without regard to the tendencies or neo-liberalism to which they are subject, for the elimination of neo-liberalism in the USA is a purely domestic affair. It should be in the interests of the rest of the world as well, for the outbreak of neo-liberal chaos in the densely populated areas of the world would lead to political and economic consequences particularly in the rest of the Americas, the proportions of which are unfathomable. The inner disintegration of our Democratic Party inevitably resulted in an increasingly alarming weakening of the authority of the highest levels of leadership. The sinking reputation of the Sanders anti-NeoLiberal Revanchists - which is the inevitable product of unstable domestic conditions of this type - led to ideas on the part of various parties in the individual States which are incompatible with the unity of the USA. The greatest consideration for the traditions of the states cannot erase the bitter realization that the extent of the fragmentation of liberal life in the past was not only not beneficial, but positively injurious to the world and life status of our Progressive Movement. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Former GOP Sec'y of Treasury rejects Trump and Bernie, will vote Hillary[edit]

Henry M. Paulson, George W. Bush's Treasury Secretary and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, does not merely take aim at Donald Trump's ample character flaws and instability. No, Paulson detests those handful of fiscal statements Trump has made that overlap with Bernie Sanders -- so he's voting for Hillary Clinton. Democratic candidates that please Republican CEOs of Goldman Sachs will not please the growing segment of especially young, poor (or poorish) people. Bernie Sanders' surprisingly strong challenge to Hillary Clinton is a symptom; this article is going to reflect that if anyone reasonable is editing it in the future. Bernie isn't going anywhere, and he's going to be leading this burgeoning movement after November of 2016.---Mona- (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back! Paulson forgot that one of reasons why entitlement programs seem to be financially unsustainable is because wealthy individuals and corporations are dodging taxes. He said that the average American household income has risen $10,000 because of post-war expansion of trade. But this average does not mean much when income inequality is worsening. Nerd (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not sure I'm all that really "back." I posted this section earlier today, and Hippocrit as well as Castaigne immediately commenced bullshit edit warring and various other infantile ploys. As it happens, I had little to do today, so I could sit on Recent Changes and not let them hold onto their bad faith sabotage and disruption efforts. But to do that on any kind of regular basis? Nah. I see in the Saloon that FCP has announced a belief that mobacracy fails for this kind of situation -- I've been saying that practically since I got here last August. I set it all forth very clearly, and particularly, here. Unless and until this is resolved, and this kind of nonsense cannot constantly go on, I'm not going to be here on any regular basis.---Mona- (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
That's very unfortunate. Castaigne is asking repeatedly to have his status as an autopatrolled user removed, so I doubt you have much to fear from him. But before I forget, thank you for voting! We have made some progress. Nerd (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Shit, not only does Goldman Sachs pay Hillary six figures for a speech, their top dogs campaign for her. Shocking. nobsBern baby bern 20:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Mona's recent edits[edit]

I tend to agree with Mona. Now that the primaries and caucuses are all over, we should only keep details that pertain to Bernie Sanders in general. Information regarding those elections should be moved elsewhere. Nerd (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not what that edit did, in the main. Which specific edits were good? Hipocrite (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
(Edited) The current bit on Tim Canova's opposition in the Iran nuclear deal is good. I think we should keep it. (For the record, I originally added it.) Nerd (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
You removed it in your proposed edit. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I clarified it above. Let's not change anything just yet and discuss everything here. Nerd (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe that was what I asked you to do when I wrote "Discuss specific concerns on talk page and I'll engage with you." Hipocrite (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
This bit needs citation. "The California initiative that Sanders is supporting is being sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), an organization that is a vocal critic of the anti-HIV drug PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis). Sanders enjoys a cozy relationship with the anti-PrEP movement and is no stranger to controversy over HIV/AIDS. His campaign was criticized previously for not including even a mention of HIV on the campaign Web site’s LGBT page; and it was only after such criticism that Sanders finally came out with a last-minute plan to fight HIV should he become president." Nerd (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Googling - [8], [9]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I suggest we re-write the last paragraph like this. "So-called Bernie-or-bust voters comprise a slight majority.<ref> </ref> In fact, a [ comprehensive poll] reveals that 13% of them say they will stay home if Sanders is not on the ballot, 41% will vote for Clinton, 15% will vote for [[Gary Johnson]] from the [[Libertarian Party]], 11% will vote for [[2016_U.S._Presidential_Election#Green_Party|Jill Stein]] from the [[Green Party]], and 7% will defect to Trump”. So far, in spite of the fact that he is behind in the pledged delegate count and mounting pressure, Sanders has no intention of dropping out<ref> </ref> and is using whatever leverage he has to influence the Democratic Party on legislative agenda, arguing that defeating Trump should not be their only goal at this point <ref> </ref>." Nerd (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to call people who would vote for Johnson or Trump "So-called Bernie-or-bust." They appear to be "completely fucked in the head." Bernie or bust would write in Bernie or vote for Stein. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the first and third bits. The second bit is just too strong. Let's just call them people who refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton. If you agree, please go ahead and edit. Nerd (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Hipocrite in that those who supported Sanders but will now vote for Johnson or Trump would more likely be cross party voters than those who shared Sanders ideology. I still think "Bernie or Bust" is more relevant to the 2016 election than to Sanders himself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 22:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Good point! 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Some other stuff[edit]

oh, fuck off back to r/SandersForPresident, nerd. You spam the same sentence in multiple articles. You contribute nothing of worth to the wiki aside from spam. Even Mona, crazy as she is, has some genuine work under her belt. what's more, you've been here for what seems like forever and still haven't learned how to properly format. Johnnyfog (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hipocrite and I are having a polite discussion on how to improve certain parts of this page. If you are unable to keep things civil, you are not welcomed here. Nerd (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)