Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Would we want to update this page with information from that site? Or, at the very least, put a link to it somewhere? The website is not by the campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 ( talk) 14:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm removing the Cato Inst. from the rating box because the figures come from their website and the wording "Trade barriers", for example, means issues that Cato sees as negative, for instance a no vote for NAFTA. Sanders has opposed NAFTA for years and I note that of late many others are beginning to see it as a failure as well. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
A very extensive Political and economic philosophy section has been added. I tried to cut it back to a NYT source with "expert's" views (rather than prof xxx from xxx university) and was reverted. I do not believe that this article is the correct place to argue Sander's ideas about his political philosophy at such great lengths. If at all. Feedback please. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have removed an opinion piece (Cory Massimino, a campus coordinator for Students For Liberty, which receives funding from the Koch Brothers) which is not suitable for this article, an extension of Sander's bio page. Apparently several blogs also picked up on some stuff he said on Vox and twisted it. See: How the Latest Smear Campaign Against Bernie Sanders Collapsed Before It Started [1] Gandydancer ( talk) 04:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ was released this week. I am a supporter so I would prefer someone else summarize it please. EllenCT ( talk) 21:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really feel Wikipedia is the appropriate place to list the ratings of politicians by private groups. Point a) There is no possibility we could or should list politicians ratings by every rating group, b) The primary reference for ratings links to a website which specifically DOES list every politicians ratings by private groups, c) It does not follow manual of style. I'm in favor of removing it, any objections? Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 07:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There's little to no mention on his positions on feminism or women. One current article is how he became an honorary woman and that's relevant enough to this joke of an election cycle. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/bernie-sanders-honorary-woman-gloria-steinem/ 198.151.200.253 ( talk) 17:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: We have a different outlook on how to portray Sanders' support of an amendment that read, "Page 62, after line 17, insert the following: ? SEC. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, as defined by DHS OIG-06- 4, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.", which ultimately had the effect of supporting the Minuteman Project, as was suggested in Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders supported Minutemen, indefinite detention for the undocumented by Louis Jacobson. However, mentioning "Minutemen", ostensibly signifying several vigilante groups of the sort that Sanders strongly disavows in the same article, gives undue significance to that aspect of his vote. Other such groups include the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and Arizona Border Recon, so even the term, "Minutemen" is unclear. Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 14:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest: "That same year, he supported an amendment to a Homeland Security appropriations bill that barred the US government from providing "a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona"—which include the Minuteman Project and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, among other groups." Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 14:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I question this addition:
As we know, most bills have a main motion with several or many lesser parts added to it. This is why during a campaign opponents can come out with outrageous accusations of voting/not voting for this or that. Every legislator is faced with the need to look the other way for some aspects of the bills that they vote on. Sanders released this following Clinton's accusations:
I think that it's a mistake to take a Senate vote as evidence of his policy on indefinite detention for undocumented immigrants with a criminal record. I believe that we should delete this addition. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans' edit does not reflect the source. What he put in is what Hillary Clinton said as reported in the source. In fact the source corrects Clinton and is accurately reflected in HopsonRoad's edit. Snooganssnoogans also fails to mention that most Democrats supported the bill. (Clinton probably would have supported it too, but by that time had left the Senate.) It's not significant anyway. The primaries are over and Sanders backed Clinton in the election. Incidentally, a recent Supreme Court decision says that all immigrants, legal or not, including tourists, can be held indefinitely without bail, making the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center redundant. I suggest time could be better spent writing about that. TFD ( talk) 03:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above two discussions, I would like to hear the opinions of other editors about what rises to the level of describing a "position". Legislators often participate in procedural votes or in votes that contain a poison pill or nuisance amendment where a "yes" vote does not connote support for the pill or the nuisance. I suggest that the standard for describing a "position" be expressed in the lead by amending the second sentence as follows:
I'm aiming to clarify that an affirmative vote on a bill sometimes represents a tradeoff between a provision that the legislator favors more heavily than another provision that the legislator opposes, the latter provision not having earned the "support" of the legislator.
The standard for describing a "position" would then require a description of what Sanders (or his spokesperson or website) said, not just how he voted. What do others suggest? HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
TFD illustrates my concern very well. It's fine to report how the legislator voted here, but it's necessary to include the reported rationale for that vote, otherwise it's just part of the voting record but does not define a "position". HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have removed this wording:
I don't think that the ideas of an assistant professor that is not notable enough to have a WP page who has written an article for The American Conservative is a reasonable reason to include in this article. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
" public ownership of the means of production"as state capitalism and assert stateless social ownership (which is distinguished from public ownership) instead as a requirement for socialist productive relations. Actually, I have already submitted that edit. If it is reverted, I hope whoever reverts it explains here.Beyond that, Goldman's statements are consistent and compatible with the other claims in that section—not that this would necessarily matter, but it does indicate that Goldman is not coming from some fringe perspective within this article or section. Just because Goldman does not have his own Wikipedia article, which is honestly common and unremarkable when citing claims and analyses in Wikipedia articles, that does not mean he (or his comments) is not notable. Regardless, notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles and I would consider the content in question to be duly weighted. As for The American Conservative, this seems to be a reliable source even though it obviously has a clear political agenda. You might not like that agenda, but absent any policy violation, I am not sure what justification there could be for omitting material sourced from it in this article. We could of course just ignore all rules, but that would require a compelling case for doing so. I do not see what compelling case could be made in this instance. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I was recently invited to comment here abut my own feelings about Bernie and his quite-worthwhile "revolution" set of issue choices for the Democratic Party "going forward" in time...from all that I've seen and heard, from both before March 1, 2016 (the date of the Massachusetts primary, when I DID vote for Bernie in the primary) right through to today, it's people exactly like Bernie Sanders...AND those who identify solidly with Bernie's views and issue choices, like Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner and even a very preferable choice for the next Democratic Governor of the Bay State, Bob Massie (who I hope to vote for later this year, in the MA Democratic primary early this autumn) who DO need to be elected in coming years, to rescue the USA from a so-far anemic recovery from the Great Recession...I've been unemployed ever since it "broke" in mid-September 2008, and have had considerable problems in getting back into the workforce ever since.
Bernie himself had a section at his campaign site, that's still viewable today, concerning what he described with the term "democratic socialism"...a LOT of it concerns the establishment of President Franklin Roosevelt's social programs, that today form a sizable part of what is known as the "social safety net" - this was expanded upon by President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society series of prgrams. These sorts of social programs have been under fire from American conservatives, ever since, from a time at least as early as Ronald Reagan's time in the White House, forward to today. There was likely even some attempts to "limit" those sorts of FDR/LBJ-initiated programs by some US Democratic Party politicians themselves, as early as President Jimmy Carter's time in office...this COULD take some serious looking, and the resultant time it would take to search for evidence of such interference could become more distracting than some of us might have to devote to the subject.
For "now", though, and to stick to "Bernie's views", for those reading my response here, getting a VERY good look at the linked page from Bernie's 2016 campaign site...the ONLY one that I know of, that's "never come down completely" from the November 2016 election, for any Democratic Party candidate that entered the Presidential race's primaries that year...is about the best "starting point" I can clearly think of, on learning about Bernie's opinions regarding the "democratic socialism" issue.
The PIPE ( talk) 20:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems unreasonable to me the section about Saners' political positions takes up 1/4 the page instead of just redirecting to a page specifically about his political positions - as is WP:MOS. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 20:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
An editor added Sander's support of nationalization when he was in the Liberty Union Party. [3] While I think it is important to explain Sanders' earlier positions when he was involved in radical politics, It's going to be confusing to put them beside each of his current positions. Compare with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren (former Republicans), Trump and Reagan (former Democrats). I think it would be better to have a separate section about the positions he held before he achieved elected office. TFD ( talk) 22:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In these articles we should be guided by WP:TERTIARY: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Similar articles, such as "What does Bernie Sanders believe? Where the candidate stands on 9 issues" make no mention of Sanders positions when he was with the Constitutional Unionist Party of the SDS.
What were Warren's views on gun control, abortion, same sex marriage, predatory lending, marijuana legalization, criminal sentencing, immigration, school bussing, Roman Catholics, nuclear disarmament, etc. in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or 1990s? I am sure that they were different from today and sources could be found for them. But no one cares and all her article requires is that she was a Republican because she had faith in the market.
TFD ( talk) 17:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Considering:
it may be relevant and substantial for the article to add Bernie's positions on NATO. -- 2003:EF:13CC:B697:6110:C5D1:75E2:9ABD ( talk) 01:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep "further" wlink Corporate welfare (" Corporate socialism" a redirect) under "Antitrust, competition and corporate regulation" section, per ES (rv here). Examples:
X1\ ( talk) 00:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Several days ago, I split the foreign policy section into a seperate article, Foreign policy of Bernie Sanders. I did this because I knew that Sanders's positions on international issues had been commented on by various international figures and domestic scholars. I chose to not write an edit summary due to following the precedent on the Political positions of Donald Trump article, which as you can see here does not have an edit summary. When Reywas92 reverted my edit, he in doing so removed most of the select responses to Sanders's policies by world figures. I now understand that my contributions to this website (which I am not saying can never be reverted) are not appreciated and will be directing my talents elsewhere. Informant16 ( talk) 04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I just heard a long interview on KPFA, Pacific Radio with Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders' long-time foreign policy advisor regarding the current Ukraine war with Russia about treaties, sanctions, our negotiations, NATO and so forth. He repeatedly called Sanders "my boss." He was speaking for Sanders. Many good sources have articles headlining him or his positions and so forth referring to him as Bernie Sanders' foreign policy advisor.
Yet I could not find a Wikipedia page on Duss.
--Doug Bashford
172.58.37.238 (
talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Given what our page on social-democracy currently says, I think it’s about time academics in favor of Sanders being a socialist should be shown. It is widely known in European academic circles that "socialism" is misunderstood, and that this misunderstanding is used by the revolutionary far-left for its own interests, in the USA. There are enough sources for this. Jaurèsian socialist tradition, as well as the Fabian school, and other schools and traditions, of Italy, Spain and Germany, of both reformist and revolutionary parties, contradict the American image. As there are reliable sources for this, there must be reliable sources specifically on the Sanders situation, and the fact that the definitions of "Socialism", inspired by anti-communist tradition, that exclude Sanders from the movement and ideology, are marginal in Academia, and that therefore Sanders is socialist. Encyclopédisme ( talk) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Would we want to update this page with information from that site? Or, at the very least, put a link to it somewhere? The website is not by the campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 ( talk) 14:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm removing the Cato Inst. from the rating box because the figures come from their website and the wording "Trade barriers", for example, means issues that Cato sees as negative, for instance a no vote for NAFTA. Sanders has opposed NAFTA for years and I note that of late many others are beginning to see it as a failure as well. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
A very extensive Political and economic philosophy section has been added. I tried to cut it back to a NYT source with "expert's" views (rather than prof xxx from xxx university) and was reverted. I do not believe that this article is the correct place to argue Sander's ideas about his political philosophy at such great lengths. If at all. Feedback please. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I have removed an opinion piece (Cory Massimino, a campus coordinator for Students For Liberty, which receives funding from the Koch Brothers) which is not suitable for this article, an extension of Sander's bio page. Apparently several blogs also picked up on some stuff he said on Vox and twisted it. See: How the Latest Smear Campaign Against Bernie Sanders Collapsed Before It Started [1] Gandydancer ( talk) 04:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ was released this week. I am a supporter so I would prefer someone else summarize it please. EllenCT ( talk) 21:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't really feel Wikipedia is the appropriate place to list the ratings of politicians by private groups. Point a) There is no possibility we could or should list politicians ratings by every rating group, b) The primary reference for ratings links to a website which specifically DOES list every politicians ratings by private groups, c) It does not follow manual of style. I'm in favor of removing it, any objections? Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 07:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There's little to no mention on his positions on feminism or women. One current article is how he became an honorary woman and that's relevant enough to this joke of an election cycle. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/bernie-sanders-honorary-woman-gloria-steinem/ 198.151.200.253 ( talk) 17:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: We have a different outlook on how to portray Sanders' support of an amendment that read, "Page 62, after line 17, insert the following: ? SEC. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, as defined by DHS OIG-06- 4, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.", which ultimately had the effect of supporting the Minuteman Project, as was suggested in Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders supported Minutemen, indefinite detention for the undocumented by Louis Jacobson. However, mentioning "Minutemen", ostensibly signifying several vigilante groups of the sort that Sanders strongly disavows in the same article, gives undue significance to that aspect of his vote. Other such groups include the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and Arizona Border Recon, so even the term, "Minutemen" is unclear. Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 14:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest: "That same year, he supported an amendment to a Homeland Security appropriations bill that barred the US government from providing "a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona"—which include the Minuteman Project and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, among other groups." Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 14:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I question this addition:
As we know, most bills have a main motion with several or many lesser parts added to it. This is why during a campaign opponents can come out with outrageous accusations of voting/not voting for this or that. Every legislator is faced with the need to look the other way for some aspects of the bills that they vote on. Sanders released this following Clinton's accusations:
I think that it's a mistake to take a Senate vote as evidence of his policy on indefinite detention for undocumented immigrants with a criminal record. I believe that we should delete this addition. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans' edit does not reflect the source. What he put in is what Hillary Clinton said as reported in the source. In fact the source corrects Clinton and is accurately reflected in HopsonRoad's edit. Snooganssnoogans also fails to mention that most Democrats supported the bill. (Clinton probably would have supported it too, but by that time had left the Senate.) It's not significant anyway. The primaries are over and Sanders backed Clinton in the election. Incidentally, a recent Supreme Court decision says that all immigrants, legal or not, including tourists, can be held indefinitely without bail, making the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center redundant. I suggest time could be better spent writing about that. TFD ( talk) 03:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
In light of the above two discussions, I would like to hear the opinions of other editors about what rises to the level of describing a "position". Legislators often participate in procedural votes or in votes that contain a poison pill or nuisance amendment where a "yes" vote does not connote support for the pill or the nuisance. I suggest that the standard for describing a "position" be expressed in the lead by amending the second sentence as follows:
I'm aiming to clarify that an affirmative vote on a bill sometimes represents a tradeoff between a provision that the legislator favors more heavily than another provision that the legislator opposes, the latter provision not having earned the "support" of the legislator.
The standard for describing a "position" would then require a description of what Sanders (or his spokesperson or website) said, not just how he voted. What do others suggest? HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
TFD illustrates my concern very well. It's fine to report how the legislator voted here, but it's necessary to include the reported rationale for that vote, otherwise it's just part of the voting record but does not define a "position". HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have removed this wording:
I don't think that the ideas of an assistant professor that is not notable enough to have a WP page who has written an article for The American Conservative is a reasonable reason to include in this article. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
" public ownership of the means of production"as state capitalism and assert stateless social ownership (which is distinguished from public ownership) instead as a requirement for socialist productive relations. Actually, I have already submitted that edit. If it is reverted, I hope whoever reverts it explains here.Beyond that, Goldman's statements are consistent and compatible with the other claims in that section—not that this would necessarily matter, but it does indicate that Goldman is not coming from some fringe perspective within this article or section. Just because Goldman does not have his own Wikipedia article, which is honestly common and unremarkable when citing claims and analyses in Wikipedia articles, that does not mean he (or his comments) is not notable. Regardless, notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles and I would consider the content in question to be duly weighted. As for The American Conservative, this seems to be a reliable source even though it obviously has a clear political agenda. You might not like that agenda, but absent any policy violation, I am not sure what justification there could be for omitting material sourced from it in this article. We could of course just ignore all rules, but that would require a compelling case for doing so. I do not see what compelling case could be made in this instance. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I was recently invited to comment here abut my own feelings about Bernie and his quite-worthwhile "revolution" set of issue choices for the Democratic Party "going forward" in time...from all that I've seen and heard, from both before March 1, 2016 (the date of the Massachusetts primary, when I DID vote for Bernie in the primary) right through to today, it's people exactly like Bernie Sanders...AND those who identify solidly with Bernie's views and issue choices, like Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner and even a very preferable choice for the next Democratic Governor of the Bay State, Bob Massie (who I hope to vote for later this year, in the MA Democratic primary early this autumn) who DO need to be elected in coming years, to rescue the USA from a so-far anemic recovery from the Great Recession...I've been unemployed ever since it "broke" in mid-September 2008, and have had considerable problems in getting back into the workforce ever since.
Bernie himself had a section at his campaign site, that's still viewable today, concerning what he described with the term "democratic socialism"...a LOT of it concerns the establishment of President Franklin Roosevelt's social programs, that today form a sizable part of what is known as the "social safety net" - this was expanded upon by President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society series of prgrams. These sorts of social programs have been under fire from American conservatives, ever since, from a time at least as early as Ronald Reagan's time in the White House, forward to today. There was likely even some attempts to "limit" those sorts of FDR/LBJ-initiated programs by some US Democratic Party politicians themselves, as early as President Jimmy Carter's time in office...this COULD take some serious looking, and the resultant time it would take to search for evidence of such interference could become more distracting than some of us might have to devote to the subject.
For "now", though, and to stick to "Bernie's views", for those reading my response here, getting a VERY good look at the linked page from Bernie's 2016 campaign site...the ONLY one that I know of, that's "never come down completely" from the November 2016 election, for any Democratic Party candidate that entered the Presidential race's primaries that year...is about the best "starting point" I can clearly think of, on learning about Bernie's opinions regarding the "democratic socialism" issue.
The PIPE ( talk) 20:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems unreasonable to me the section about Saners' political positions takes up 1/4 the page instead of just redirecting to a page specifically about his political positions - as is WP:MOS. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 20:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
An editor added Sander's support of nationalization when he was in the Liberty Union Party. [3] While I think it is important to explain Sanders' earlier positions when he was involved in radical politics, It's going to be confusing to put them beside each of his current positions. Compare with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren (former Republicans), Trump and Reagan (former Democrats). I think it would be better to have a separate section about the positions he held before he achieved elected office. TFD ( talk) 22:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In these articles we should be guided by WP:TERTIARY: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Similar articles, such as "What does Bernie Sanders believe? Where the candidate stands on 9 issues" make no mention of Sanders positions when he was with the Constitutional Unionist Party of the SDS.
What were Warren's views on gun control, abortion, same sex marriage, predatory lending, marijuana legalization, criminal sentencing, immigration, school bussing, Roman Catholics, nuclear disarmament, etc. in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or 1990s? I am sure that they were different from today and sources could be found for them. But no one cares and all her article requires is that she was a Republican because she had faith in the market.
TFD ( talk) 17:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
References
Considering:
it may be relevant and substantial for the article to add Bernie's positions on NATO. -- 2003:EF:13CC:B697:6110:C5D1:75E2:9ABD ( talk) 01:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep "further" wlink Corporate welfare (" Corporate socialism" a redirect) under "Antitrust, competition and corporate regulation" section, per ES (rv here). Examples:
X1\ ( talk) 00:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Several days ago, I split the foreign policy section into a seperate article, Foreign policy of Bernie Sanders. I did this because I knew that Sanders's positions on international issues had been commented on by various international figures and domestic scholars. I chose to not write an edit summary due to following the precedent on the Political positions of Donald Trump article, which as you can see here does not have an edit summary. When Reywas92 reverted my edit, he in doing so removed most of the select responses to Sanders's policies by world figures. I now understand that my contributions to this website (which I am not saying can never be reverted) are not appreciated and will be directing my talents elsewhere. Informant16 ( talk) 04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I just heard a long interview on KPFA, Pacific Radio with Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders' long-time foreign policy advisor regarding the current Ukraine war with Russia about treaties, sanctions, our negotiations, NATO and so forth. He repeatedly called Sanders "my boss." He was speaking for Sanders. Many good sources have articles headlining him or his positions and so forth referring to him as Bernie Sanders' foreign policy advisor.
Yet I could not find a Wikipedia page on Duss.
--Doug Bashford
172.58.37.238 (
talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Given what our page on social-democracy currently says, I think it’s about time academics in favor of Sanders being a socialist should be shown. It is widely known in European academic circles that "socialism" is misunderstood, and that this misunderstanding is used by the revolutionary far-left for its own interests, in the USA. There are enough sources for this. Jaurèsian socialist tradition, as well as the Fabian school, and other schools and traditions, of Italy, Spain and Germany, of both reformist and revolutionary parties, contradict the American image. As there are reliable sources for this, there must be reliable sources specifically on the Sanders situation, and the fact that the definitions of "Socialism", inspired by anti-communist tradition, that exclude Sanders from the movement and ideology, are marginal in Academia, and that therefore Sanders is socialist. Encyclopédisme ( talk) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)