Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

About Typhoon's purported motivation for supporting Clinton[edit]

Where did Typhoon even suggest, that she's supporting her, just because she's a woman?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 15:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, but I do know Typhoon supports Clinton so much Typhoon ignores Clinton's shortcomings and defames her sole primary opponent with false attacks. That's what matters to me. PBfreespace (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

From my talkpage, Typhoon believes that Clinton is to the left of Obama and as left-wing as Warren.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand that she's a pro-Hillary zealot, but I don't understand how Mona came to the conclusion, that Typhoon does that cause Hillary is a woman. Is it possible, that Mona had a run-in with such people elsewhere and mistakes Typhoon for one?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 18:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon's given logical reasons to support her belief that Clinton's to the left of Obama - may I also remind you that the people accusing her of being a "zealot" put in that ridiculous and dishonest quote mine at the top her page? Also, Mona is a mentally unstable, abusive zealot. Of course she'll grasp anything to throw shade at people she disagrees with, PB and Owlman over here are very accepting and supportive of that sort of strategy. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So we got a pro-Hillary zealot (Typhoon) against a pro-Sanders zealot (Mona). "Fun", huh?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 00:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Mona calls everyone she doesnt like a zealot. Sandflapjack (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@NFH How so? I mean it seems hypocritical for you to accuse me of constructing some sort of strategy of abuse since you haven't been some ultra civil user yourself.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 09:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 09:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, but I know that I'm a cantankerous asshole, I admit it. But I don't randomly accuse people of being Zionists (hence eeeeevil) because they displeased me, or call everyone who challenges my worldview "vile" or other insults, or spin sexist bullshit to browbeat people into silence, or insert outright falsehoods and obvious quote mines into articles, or try to whitewash people, and I don't come whining to moderators when this inevitably comes to bite me back in the ass. Meanwhile, Mona does all that shit, has done so since she came here, got away with it for a long time, and her cabal is quite happy to stand by her side because she's an accelerationist, pro-Bernie zealot. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you just accuse Kugelschriber (and Owlman, hence "you two") of standing by Mona's side? Just checking; I'm not here to cause trouble. :3 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I rectified it to "her cabal", comprising Owlman and PB. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Because shes a sexist puritan Sandflapjack (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

So if I correctly describe Clinton as to the left of Obama, that makes me her zealous supporter? L-O-L. Typhoon (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"correctly?" Now that's the L-O-L. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

She is, by voting record and statements, to the left of Obama. Are you denying this? --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tim Canova[edit]

We can't mention Sander's "Break with orthodoxy on the Israel-Palestine conflict" without mentioning him supporting an anti-Iran, pro-Izrael neo-con for congress. Attempt to erase this as "unnecessary information" are Orwellian. Typhoon (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Because it is an association fallacy. Sanders doesn't support Canova because he is more pro-Israeli; if we add this then we would have to allow info on how Clinton supports DWS who happens to support payday loans.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not an association fallacy. It's also especially hilarious to hear you complain about "association fallacies" when you dragged every GOP politician who said anything slightly positive about Hillary to her article. Sanders claims to "break orthodoxy on Israel", only to attempt to remove a pro-iran deal politician and replace her with an incredibly anti-iran one. Owlman, are you telling me that Sanders would have no problem to support a ultra-warhawk, religiously conservative republican bigot as long as he was against payday loans? Adn you would have no problem with that? You wouldn't point out the hypocrisy? Are you a single-issue voter? Typhoon (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Those aren't association fallacies. If it is relevant to note David Duke's support for Trump's immigration plan then it is relevant to mention neocon support for her foreign policy. Also, nice character assassination.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You're throwing around names of fallacies without knowing what they mean, and selectively using them for Clinton and Sanders. Typhoon (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders breaks with orthodoxy on Israel. Tim Canova is pro-Israeli. Sanders has endorsed Tim Canova. Therefore, Sanders doesn't actually break with said orthodoxy. If Robert Reich came out and say that Clinton's policies were the best for regulating banks then we would cite it; when neocons say that Clinton foreign policy is neoconservative then we should cite it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 08:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 08:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason not to mention Sanders' hypocrisy in supporting someone so outspoken about his neo-con views. Our readers have a right to know if Sanders endorsed candidates are progressives like him or not. Typhoon (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

How about we get rid of the entire section? Wouldn't that solve the problem? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because Canova has a pro-Israel stance doesn't mean he is a neocon. You are tring to construct a narrative that Sanders is supporting Caanova because ge is pro-Israel just because he wants to remove DWS.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 22:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sanders is pro-Israel, too (being for a two-state solution doesn't make one anti-Israel). None of his positions are anti-Israel.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 18:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 18:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If you addressing me then yeah I never said he wasn't "pro-Israel" but when we talk about Canova we are talking about someone who is a supports Israel w/o question. Typhoon is trying to associate Canova's beliefs about Israel with Sanders break with the political orthodoxy around Israel.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 22:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Just in case anyone accuses me of historical revisionism with this edit: I have created the page "Criticisms of Bernie Sanders" as a spinoff page and added the criticism section over there: I really think that this section was too long for this article alone. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 14:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe something similar should be done for Hillary Clinton? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, if you do it for Sanders, do the same for Clinton. Their articles are getting rather unwieldy. Nerd (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not a fan. We have turned these articles into WP knockoffs by bloating the pages with repeated info.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 00:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the same should be done for Clinton, but which parts specifically should be cut off? Putting Clinton's scandals onto an entire article could be slightly problematic, more so than just general criticisms maybe, but idk. It's not an ideal solution, but having all that in the main article did seem excessive. Oh, and repeated information should definitely be trimmed. – AOAPJM ^(talk) 00:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid quite a few users are against this enterprise. But still, we need to continue trimming the article. Nerd (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well we could move anything about the Foundation to a new article about the Foundation. Also, as I have stated before, we should move the minority voter section, Nevada caucas incident, and supporters of Bernie to separate sections on the Dem 2016 primary.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC) 05:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

All sounds good to me :D – AOAPJM ^(talk) 11:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not a silver rating?[edit]

Just look at the page!-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Because the Berniebots and $hillary supporters can't agree on anything. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why not. This article is generally well written. Nerd271 (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There are some general grammatical format errors that I'd like to fix in this article, but I am not allowed to due to article protection, so see my post below where I'm going to say what they are with more typing than originally necessary. Garlic mashed potatoes (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Errors seem to have been fixed. I'll change the rating.-D1@m0ndD15c1 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks for the upgrade. And be sure to vote for my good friend Hillary.-Bernie Sanders (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Protectionism and Economic Nationalism[edit]

Hello, seeing the subtopics containing common criticisms of his positions, I noticed that one of the most significant positions of his is missing; free trade.

It's especially significant in a global sense, as it would affect billions of people worldwide, especially the global poor. For example, by refusing to trade with low wage countries, this will not only raise prices dramatically for the American poor, it will also massively decrease wages for the global poor, as they no longer are able to make money off of exporting goods to the first world, and those goods are instead manufactured at a higher cost in the developed world.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11139718/bernie-sanders-trade-global-poverty

While it's certainly true that he cares deeply for the American poor, his lack of concern for the global poor is rather troubling and something which should ideally be addressed, and not just through the immigration section.^{— Unsigned, by: 24.182.165.147 / talk / contribs}

Well, the "global poor" won't vote him into office, right?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WAHAHAHAHA oh Jesus dude, you actually believe what you're spewing don't you? Why don't you tell what you just said to Foxconn workers who came in from the country and respond to journalists from American newspapers saying they regret moving to work for Foxconn? No, free trade isn't wealth distribution, it's EXPLOITATION. These workers work sometimes for 16 hours a day, sometimes with no overtime, sometimes with wage theft, at the minimum wage in their own countries, which is, of course, far too low, just to survive- take away American "free trade" and "economic good will" and they go back to farming (comparative prosperity because at least like this they're somewhat self-sufficient) while the country tries to bolster its own economy in a more worker-friendly way. And while I'm at it, it would not raise prices as much as people like to whine about.

"Sad!" --75.1.54.24 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Problems in the opening paragraph (which I seem not allowed to edit)[edit]

The opening paragraph reads, "This Independent has in fact been a part-time Democrat throughout his political career." It should be changed to, "A self-proclaimed 'democratic socialist,' he has, in fact, been a part-time Democrat throughout his political career." Garlic mashed potatoes (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It is true that he is an Independent. We later mention that he is a self-described democratic socialist. Nerd271 (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but 1) independent, in this case, is not a proper title and therefore need not be capitalised and 2) commas are your friend in separating "in fact." Garlic mashed potatoes (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In this case, it identifies a US politician who is not affiliated with any (major) party. Commas are not necessary to isolate the phrase "in fact" here, even though adding two would not be of any harm. I appreciate your desire to improve the article, however. Nerd271 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is neither Democrat nor Republican, but the fact remains that "Independent" in this context is not a proper article. As such, capitalisation of that word is superfluous. Garlic mashed potatoes (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I carried out an Internet search myself and found that you are right, but for a different reason. There exists something called the American Independent Party, of which Sanders is not a member. Furthermore, CNN does not think this word is a proper noun in the context of American politics either. Alright, then. I shall make the change. Nerd271 (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevada[edit]

I was on my way to edit the page to amend the bit of the article about Nevada where it tried to dismiss what happened as "legal" when that was completely not the case when the convention didn't let in people who tried to prove they had the credentials the committee said they didn't (not even hearing them out) and also using voice votes in completely outrageous ways only to find that the article is locked. I feel like this should be fixed, and a mention of the chairs manufactroversy would be nice.--75.1.54.24 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Snort[edit]

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/SRWsJ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Would Have Won?[edit]

I'm strongly convinced that not only would Bernie have won... anyone would have won. I think Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat who possibly could have lost that. And even she won the popular vote and lost in key swing states by not large margins. There were plenty of people who disapproved of Trump but voted for him due to dislike of Clinton. cold and obviously disingenuous as she is.-Manicman

I'm not really sure what the policy on editing broad strokes points is, so I decided to raise this on the talk page instead. This--"Knowing Donald Trump's ability to shrug off scandals and win, it likely would have been hopeless for Sanders"--seems like reaching. There are a number of counterarguments to this; that it's possibly even more speculative because it can't even claim polls in its favor, that based on the "too much dirt" logic Trump should've lost too, that Trump's resistance to scandal was in part because of pseudo-populism & how disliked Hillary was, that critics of Clinton's polling were closer to the truth so why should they be wrong about Sanders, & so on. I just think there's an awful lot of unaddressed holes in that argument.67.234.51.230 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You may have a point, so I tried to rewrite that part and include the context behind Trump's win in the first place despite being filled with scandals: Hillary was incredibly unpopular as well. We have to note that the recent presidential election is a rare one where both contenders are disliked by the majority. That's one point I'm familiar with, but if you can fill in the rest, it would be golden. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 23:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you included most of what I said with the exception of the populism point, so I tried to add a quote/source that I think gets the main ideas of the argument across. I also added a snide remark about the ultimate futility of arguing about hypothetical campaigns that could have been, because that feels like a thing which would belong on Rational Wiki. Hopefully I did it right.67.234.51.230 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I have another point of contention: media just love to report on whatever Trump says and they probably helped him get recognized despite the media's intention to put him in notoriety. Considering that, it's pretty clear that the original statement wasn't very well thought out. Finally, this is absolutely speculation, and reality sometimes likes to play around with us. Just as how the polls thought Hillary would win. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 05:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"I'm strongly convinced that not only would Bernie have won" Then you're completely divorced from reality. ^{— Unsigned, by: 104.48.245.221 / talk / contribs}

/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam thread[edit]

Bernie's hagiography on RationalWiki, crying out for improvement. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Are there other subreddits discussing us? Evil Zionist (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Intro graph about current info[edit]

I cited sound facts and was reverted. I reverted back. What is the protocol for reversion, editing, when edits like mine are most current and citationally sound?--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The bottom of this[edit]

The questions here are: are any of the edits incorporated by Tea Sagan well-sourced, and is any of the text removed by him not well-sourced? I'm a Sanders supporter, and I don't give a shit if the article has negative things to say about him. I care that it says accurate things about him. Discuss. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and @Nerd and @CowHouse, protecting a page because of edit warring and then continuing to revise the article afterward seems a bit unfair. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is. I will unlock the page. And for the record, if we are being biased in favor of Sanders then his Wikipedia page is a hagiography. Nerd (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tea Sagan Feel free to bring back your stuff, mate. Nerd (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Fair enough. I've seen others do this before so I thought it was fine but you make a valid point. Also, it was me, not Nerd.

Regarding @Tea Sagan's edits, I couldn't see why Tea Sagan removed a lot of the information (which was sourced and accurate), so I re-added it. I removed the parts where Tea Sagan framed the "would Bernie have won?" sections to essentially be "Bernie would have probably won". Tea Sagan removed many of the sources that disputed this. We shouldn't cherry-pick and, while it could be true that Sanders would have won, we simply don't know either way.

Also, can anyone verify whether Barney Frank ever said this? It's a bit concerning that a potentially fake quote was on the page for so long. CowHouse (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if I doubt the veracity of a quote I research it. On the very, very rare occasion I've inadvertently used a fake quote I immediately admit it when shown, and am able to do my own research. Can't you? We KNOW Hillary lost to a reality TV con artist who's grossly unpopular. Almost no other Democrat would have, per all available likely evidence. It's a counter-factual who could have beaten Trump, so cannot be definitively shown, but we do know that the Imbecile Trump is wildly unpopular and that she managed to lose to a sicko like him. How many others would have!? Dems were warned, but the party establishment insisted on moving forward with a coronation too many Americans opposed. We now reap what y'all sowed--Tea Sagan (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't add or remove the quote, it had nothing to do with you. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

All the evidence before the election pointed overwhelming to a Clinton victory, but that didn't happen. Elections are unpredictable. We simply do not know what would have happened. It's entirely hypothetical. Also, "all likely evidence" is false. For instance, Clinton easily won the primaries in both Florida and Pennsylvania against Sanders. Even if Sanders had won Michigan and Wisconsin it wouldn't have been enough. CowHouse (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"It's entirely hypothetical" As is any notion, you and yours are so fond of, that the GOP would have beaten Sanders w/ smears. Polls, as I have copiously cited, showed Sanders doing better than Hillary, but YOU would not listen, and dug in, trashing we Bernie supports all you could. Then flipping us off after the primaries by dissing us and picking an anti-Bernie VP running mate. Trump is YOUR FAULT. Hillary lost to a con man, detested reality TV asshole. But you still won't admit the fault is hers and yours.--108.78.242.56 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tea Sagan Please re-sign the post above. (I'm assuming it's yours and you forgot to sign in.) Thank you! Nerd (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Tea Sagan, I'm not saying Trump would have beaten Sanders. The section should contain the arguments for and against Sanders winning against Trump. You think all the arguments against him winning should be removed. Why? I have no problem with including the pro arguments.

The polls showing Sanders beating Trump are still on the page so that's a moot point. Also, national polls are not exactly definitive proof that Sanders would have won considering that the Electoral College exists. Clinton won the popular vote after all. You need to show that Sanders would have done significantly better than Clinton in the important swing states that allowed Trump to win the election (especially Florida and Pennsylvania where Clinton campaigned strongly and also easily outperformed Sanders in the primary). Sure, it's possible but it's very speculative.

Also, find one example of me "trashing" Bernie supporters. Who is this "you" you're referring to anyway? CowHouse (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You are an idiot, framing the discussion in absurd ways. Hilary LOST to a rancid reality TV show host who is and was deeply unpopular -- she was and is also unpopular. All polling indicated that the enormously popular Sanders would not have lost to that swine Trump (Nor would almost any other Dem have lost to Trump). Your burden is to explain supporting the unpopular Clinton, not mine to show how a clown like Trump could ever have beaten another Dem ticket, including the highly popular Sanders.--Tea Sagan (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You're just repeating yourself so I can't really respond. Let's try to get back on topic. I am fine with including the arguments that justify the claim that Sanders would have beaten Trump. The polls you keep mentioning are already mentioned on the page: "Sanders' supporters pointed to aggregate polling consistently showing their man was the stronger candidate against Donald Trump, results that persisted through the primaries" ... "Poll after poll during the primaries indicated Sanders would have beaten Trump by wider margins than Hillary Clinton, which suggested that even though the polls predicting a Clinton win over Trump turned out to be wrong, that the larger margin of win Sanders consistently enjoyed would have meant victory."

Your arguments are already included so I have to ask why you are against including any counter-argument? CowHouse (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous[edit]

Multiple others agree with my edits, but the anti-Bernie members will not allow well-sourced edits to stand, including in the intro where they belong. I'm leaving again for a long while, becasue this place sucks. You few but tenacious "liberals" unable to face reality are why we are stuck with fascists. Congrats. It won't get better until you accept what the electorate rejects in your centrist Democratic, establishment party.--Tea Sagan (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The sources you were using were incorrect and/or didn't support what you're saying, That's why they keep getting removed, Also your claim that "Centrist democrats can't win" is disputed by the recent democratic wins, Most of those candidates who won are not socialists. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Am I The Only One...[edit]

...who feels that, no matter what, this problem just isn't going to end? I mean, any mainstream source can be accused of having a pro-Clinton (or at least anti-Sanders) bias, and any left-leaning source can be accused of having the opposite bias.

Here's the crux of the issue, from what I can tell: Tea Sagan is trying to make the article more positive and is supporting this with (what he thinks are) good sources. Then it appears that he has misinterpreted some of them, and so Tea Sagan accuses most of the other editors of suppressing the Sanders narrative and putting their heads in the sand. This is then followed by Sagan taking his proverbial ball and going home. Am I missing something? RoninMacbeth (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No you're not the only one, This seems to be a common issue with Tea Sagan :https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Tea_Sagan, He adds poorly sourced information and when called out on it he throws a hissy fit and then disappears for awhile and then comes back and repeats it again. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Then it appears that he has misinterpreted some of them," Nope. Nor has anyone on this page shown otherwise. And yes, I do limit my time and then "pick up my toys and leave." (BTW, I'm a she; why is it always assumed accounts are male?) Democrats, as a party, may be saved by the social democratic insurgency, otherwise they'll keep losing and leaving us with fascism such as is produced by Trump and his movement. This site, however, is a marginal one, and all I have time to do is drop reality in from time to time. Fighting for this or that edit, at the end of the day, won't help -- but the discussion I provide might educate some thinking people. Most of my efforts are, however, put elsewhere, including local politics. Editing masturbation at this C list site is not that important, so I'm not inclined to give it a lot of my effort without any indication that truth and intellectual rigor matter. What does matter is happening -- Berniecrats taking over and helping to end the rubble centrist have turned it into.--Tea Sagan (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tea Sagan: We are not debating the merits of the social democratic revolution. We are debating whether or not your edits are constructive. Another editor (CowHouse, I think) said you misinterpreted a source. Explain to me why any of your edits were accurate and I will personally put them into the page.

Also, my apologies for assuming your gender. I think that since my social circle tends to consist mostly of males, that's how I think of anonymous people on the internet. It's something I'm trying to get over. Sorry about that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I think I've been careful not to ever call you she or he, but thanks for clarifying.

You did misinterpret this article. This is what you added:

"In Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, the three states that determined the outcome of the election and where Clinton inexplicably barely campaigned (which "working class" Bernie almost certainly would never have failed to do)".

This is what the article you cited for this claim actually says:

"The former secretary of state wrote that in Pennsylvania, her team had 120 more staffers on the ground than President Barack Obama did four years earlier and spent 211% more on TV ads. She noted that she held more than 25 campaign events in the Keystone State while having major surrogates like Obama and Vice President Joe Biden make appearances as well. ... She also noted that in Michigan, she had about 140 more staffers on the ground than Obama in 2012, spent 166% more on TV ads, and made seven visits during the general election campaign." CowHouse (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I "misinterpreted nothing, including this article. No reasonable person is any longer denying Hillary failed to campaign properly in the rust belt (I'm a Michigander AND SAW IT HERE). You are either a hack or uninterested in truth. It's a wast of time to re-litigate with ignorant hacks what the rest of the word long ago accepted as reality. I gave up such argumentation when I quit calling out creationists.--Tea Sagan (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Calm down, are you interested in improving the article or not? If so, do you really think insults are going to be productive? Your original claim is that she "barely campaigned", not that she "failed to campaign properly". Neither of these claims are backed up in the source you chose. In fact, it says the opposite. Read it, or just read the relevant parts I quoted. I don't know how you can possibly argue with this. CowHouse (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove paragraph[edit]

I was re-reading the page and this paragraph is really out of place:

Sanders supporters say that the Democratic Establishment insisted on running a candidate who was grossly unpopular and married to a sexual harasser herself whom she and her supporters overwhelmingly protected. She certainly lost, while the most popular American national politician was sandbagged by the party, whether or not pundits agree the primary was or wasn't technically "rigged."

Reasons I think the paragraph should be removed:

The "Democratic Establishment" insisted on running Clinton? She chose to run herself, so I don't really know what this is supposed to suggest. Were they meant to run the candidate who lost the primary?
The mention of Bill Clinton's sexual assault allegations came out of nowhere and don't relate to whether Clinton or Sanders were more likely to win against Trump.
Its tone is jarring compared to the surrounding paragraphs. The section discusses the arguments for or against the claim that Sanders would have won in a general election and then suddenly there's allegations that, supposedly, Clinton's supporters "overwhelmingly protected" a sexual harasser. How is this relevant? The sandbagging and rigging claims are, at the very least, not relevant to a discussion about Sanders' chances against Trump since Sanders would have won the primary in this hypothetical scenario.

I don't see much value in keeping this paragraph. Does anyone disagree? CowHouse (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it, It's garbage and a ad hominem attack against the Clintons. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"ad hominem attack against the Clintons" Is that right? That sickness against women has long been embraced by "feminist" Hillarycrats. --Tea Sagan (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tea Sagan The section is about whether Sanders would have beaten Trump. Hillary Clinton is completely irrelevant to this section. CowHouse (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tea Sagan You're a butthurt Berniebro, The fact that I actually know what I'm talking about really seems to upset you. Typical Berniebro behavior. Are you going to start farting and throwing chairs now? Jaydogg1994 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"You're a butthurt Berniebro" A female one, who knows you insisted on a candidate so detested that a misogynist, fascist won. Your shame in insisting on an oligarchical shitstain like Hillary is boundless. Bernie far more likely would have won, per ALL polls.--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, guys! Let's refrain from using loaded and divisive language, OK? Nerd (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jaydogg1994 You're not helping. Stay out of it if you're just going to hurl insults.

@Tea Sagan Please ignore Jaydogg1994 if he's just going to insult you. CowHouse (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"It's entirely hypothetical" As is any notion, you and yours are so fond of, that the GOP would have beaten Sanders w/ smears. Polls, as I have copiously cited, showed Sanders doing better than Hillary, but YOU would not listen, and dug in, trashing we Bernie supports all you could. Then flipping us off after the primaries by dissing us and picking an anti-Bernie VP running mate. Trump is YOUR FAULT. Hillary lost to a con man, detested reality TV asshole. But you still won't admit the fault is hers and yours.--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we please avoid the blame game? Whatever happened happened. Let's just back up whatever we want to say with reliable sources and phrase them in such a way that is neither loaded nor divisive. I know we eschew a neutral point of view here at Rational Wiki, but this article has been so contentious that some care is in order. Nerd (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nerd, I grasp your well-mentioned request and admonitions. Before this last election I sounded like that. But all through the primaries/election, and now after, centrist Dems are lying (sic) and defaming those of is who are to the left of Establishment Dems. (Countless times major of their figures, and minor ones to me, claimed we were women-hating racists, Russian dupes & etc. or otherwise sick and wrong.) They got Trump elected, and I will accept nothing more now than that they finally accept fact-based analyses. The alternative is to promote a candidate, party and worldview that gave us TRUMP. At that point, I lose all good will for them. (See 12-16 months ago of this page's topic to see how sickly Hillary supporters treated Bernie supporters.) This must end to end fascism by providing a workable and worked-for platform for the nation of a very light version of social democracy the population now demands, all the establishment Dem shrieking notwithstanding. Go with the Bernie program, or see us taken over further by FASCISTS--Tea Sagan (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Tea Sagan Can you please stay on topic. What specifically do you want added and/or removed from the page, and why? CowHouse (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Low level nuclear waste[edit]

Low level nuclear waste consists of lightly contaminated items coming from research labs and hospitals and as such can be compressed to reduce volume. I really don't think burying such material deep underground in a vicinity of a community is such a big deal. It is impossible to free oneself from nuclear radiation. (How else would radiometric dating be possible?) Nerd (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Credit default swaps[edit]

Not sure how credit default swaps helped cause the banking crisis? I thought they were only a symptom of the crisis. I don't know anything about financing and have watched the Big Short 5 times and still not get it so can someone explain this to me? There's a part in this page that says Bernie supported legislation that stopped the gaboldeegook from regulating CDS's which "helped cause the banking crisis in 2008". ^{— Unsigned, by: Dapperedavid / talk / contribs 23:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)}

Why the Harvard Harris poll is a unreliable source.[edit]

Harvard Harris has a 5.2% bias for progressives vs someone in the middle (i.e. not conservative). Harris interactive is the most biased pollster in the whole set rated. So because Bernie is the favorite of the progressives you can expect that his polls are at least a couple of percent too high.

Harris interactive's bias (technically called "House effect") is the top line in the chart

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_pollsters_affect_poll_resu.html Jaydogg1994 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Energy Policy[edit]

Not gonna lie. I'm really proud of that subsection. I learned a lot writing it and had plenty of fun as well. Nerd (talk) 03:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious bias and misunderstanding of the Nordic model[edit]

This page has very obvious biases. It tries very hard to disguise itself as something factual, but gets a lot of facts wrong and intentionally omits anything that would go against the narrative his supporters would prefer.

In particular, his policies deviate greatly from the Nordic model, but he either misunderstands the Nordic model or quotes it in very misleading ways. The Nordic countries are staunchly pro-free trade/anti-protectionist (this is a very big and important one), supports collective bargaining of wages by industry rather than a one-size-fit-all minimum wage, have multipayer universal healthcare not single payer, and many more. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.202.214.72 / talk / contribs 02:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:

on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Also, we are not pretending to be unbiased. See RW:SPOV. If you have problems with the page, please edit it to remove the problems, citing sources for your counterclaims. þe olꝺe Ꞅƿɽyᵹᵹyna (ꞇalc) (conċꞃybs) @ 02:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

69.202.214.72 While your comment is constructive, you could've just cut to the chase and simply said "oh, the 'Nordic' model is misunderstood" without insinuating malicious implications such as "this article is intentionally biased and purposefully omits inconvenient facts". It would be easier to have a discussion and work toward a better, less biased article that way. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 03:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bernie, not Sanders[edit]

Since we're not Wikipedia, and this article is kind of a dull read, I suggest replacing all the "Sanders" referring to Bernie Sanders in this article with "Bernie". Because we all call him Bernie, not Sanders, and Bernie just has a better ring to it. Dapperedavid (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I personally use both terms. I'd also like to point out that calling public figures by their first names suggests a certain degree of bias and support in regards to their policies. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I will admit that I agree with Bernie Sanders on almost everything (as all RW users should), but Rationalwiki articles don't have to be completely neutral. It's okay to show a little affection towards him this way without making it a propaganda piece. Most people call him Bernie anyway, even if they disagree with him, or don't see him as the second coming of Christ. The article just feels very sterile this way, I think this would make the article more light hearted. Dapperedavid (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

As with almost every politician since the dawn of time, there are parts of Sanders' platform that I do not agree with, namely his stance on firearms and his extremely muddled stance on foreign policy. Furthermore, your statement about how all RW users should supposedly love Sanders comes off as naive at best and trollish at worst. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's a dull read, it's a problem with the prose, not with how we call Bernie Sanders, though it may have contributed to it. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 20:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe all RW users should agree with most of his platfrom, because I think all RW users should be in favor of universal healthcare, a living wage, etc. I also think all RW users should accept global warming, evolution theory, etc. I understand you're against people owning any type of fire arm, I don't understand what your problem with his stance on foreign policy is and why it confuses you. Speaking of foreign policy, the foreign policy subsection of this article is a disaster. I will start a new topic about that on this Talk page as well, maybe that's more worthy of being changed. I still think replacing Sanders with Bernie will make this article look less like a school essay, and for that reason it would be a positive change. Dapperedavid (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You understand nothing. I support those policies, not any one politician. Furthermore my issue with gun ownership in the united states is that the modern understanding of the second amendment is, to put it bluntly, a load of bullshit created by ignoring the meaning of the actual words in the U.S. Constitution. As for Sanders' foreign policy, if he is half as hawkish and interventionist as the current status quo I will oppose that no matter what. Half the reason global politics are so fucked up is because the U.S. couldn't keep it's fingers out of everyone else's pies in the past, and wishes to continue such policies in the future. If you wish to support him, then support him but don't go around telling the rest of us that we should march in lockstep with you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right, in that case I don't understand your problem with Bernie's gun policy. Bernie is not half as hawkish as the status quo, I'd say 10% as hawkish. Again, I don't want to make you upset, but you really should support most of his platform. Dapperedavid (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I use the terms "Bernie" and "Sanders" interchangeably when the context makes it clear that he cannot be confused with Sarah Huckabee Sanders ~~and struggling kindergarten principal~~, though I prefer the latter as a sign of respect. Nerd (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC) @GrammarCommie It is a good idea to support and criticize/attack ideas and not people. Well done, you pinky punk! Nerd (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Bias and inaccurate/outdated information[edit]

This is one of the worst articles RW has on this site, and I love RW. However, this article is full of fluff and outdated information. Sanders is not the most popular politician, and the one were he was quoted to be was from LAST YEAR. Furthermore, I mentioned Bernie's struggles in African-American communities, as many black folks like myself have tried to point out, more specifically on sites like The Root. However this information was removed with no explanation given. To make things worse, This article outright lies and claims Our Revolution was winning races across the country...THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE. Our Revolution's candidates have lost nearly all their races. This too was pointed out weeks ago, and that information too was removed with no reason given. I don't even think they have won a single election? In any case, they are not even close to be anything resembling a success story. Rational Wiki has disappointed me with this article, which is little more than a puff piece for the worship of Bernie Sanders. Facts that don't fit the narrative are removed. Nothing rational about it.

Shame on Rational Wiki for deeming this an acceptable article. ^{— Unsigned, by: 40.128.181.246 / talk}

Shame on you for failing to sign your comment and forcing me to clean up after you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: There arn't any edits listed from your IP address, either link the edits in question or join the many IP editors who shoot off their mouths but ultimately accomplish nothing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, to be honest i'm a little disappointed. I don't really care what was recorded via edit or whatever the fuck. point is, this article has misleading and inaccurate/outdated information and is in need to be more accurately balanced. I mean I mentioned the outright lies and misleading statements mentioned in the article. Personally, I think those should be addressed instead of attacking someone who is simply adding constructive criticism. ^{— Unsigned, by: 40.128.181.246 / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:

on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Education[edit]

We should talk about how Bernie Sanders wants to make college tuition free and debt free. LuodiWang (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah because it's impractical. He can want it all he wants, it won't happen.—チーズバーガー • めん

(talk • stalk) 01:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think that it won't happen? LuodiWang (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It's a drastic change to an industry that makes a lot of money. Also, how many presidential candidates promised something only to not have it happen?—チーズバーガー • めん

(talk • stalk) 22:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders wants to make tuition free at public colleges and universities so that every American who studies hard in school can go to college regardless of how much money their parents make and without going deeply into debt. If we elect Justice Democrats to Congress, vote out Republicans and corporatist Democrats, and elect Bernie Sanders as president in 2020, Bernie will be able to make college tuition free and debt free without opposition from conservatives and centrists. LuodiWang (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Call me naive but isn't it better than preserving the status quo when it comes to the criminal tuition rates and student loans? --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 22:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. LuodiWang (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that something sounds good is not a good indicator of whether or not it will happen anytime soon. Especially since it relies on Americans electing the exact right people in sufficient numbers, which we probably won't do. Even if you're fighting the good fight, you should still keep realistic expectations. DuceMoosolini^{Forum Romanum} 01:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

From the looks of it so far, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a good chance at unseating one of the top Democrats in Congress. LuodiWang (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)