Bernie coming up on Chris Hayes

[malaise]

Re money for the Defense Budget/MIC versus money for regular folks.

[bdamomma]

1. Watching

now.

[lapucelle]

2. Will Chris ask him about funding for the F-35? N/T

[FoxNewsSucks]

3. His time would be better spent asking

the Maserati-driving Joe Manchin about the climate change parts of the BBB that he's holding up. Or why Manchin doesn't want billionaires to pay a fair share of taxes.

The F-35 thing is old news of the sort I'd expect to see peddled on OAN or NewsMax.

[lapucelle]

4. Why isn't Chris Haye's time well spent asking about $1,500,000,000,000

in military spending in a segment about the bloated defense budget, especially when that money is being spent on a program fraught with problems?

Why would anyone expect to see "news of this sort" (i.e. news about the military wasting $1,500,000,000,000 on a "boondoggle" that negatively impacts the environment) on Newsmax or OAN?

The Pentagon’s $1.5 Trillion Addiction to the F-35 Fighter
Despite serious setbacks, Lockheed Martin’s defunct jet still has Washington’s ear.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/f35-fighter-jet-pentagon/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VT Digger is an excellent source of information concerning the environmental impact of the F-35.

https://vtdigger.org/tag/f-35/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So are Seven Days and The Burlington Free Press.

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/ArticleArchives?keywords=F%2035&sortType=relevance

https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/search/?q=f+35

[FoxNewsSucks]

7. Maybe the corporate media should be exposing a lot more

of the wastepit that is military spending.

But that would jeopardize all of the ad money they get from "defense" contractors.

I'm not taking the side of the wasteful military budget, I'm just sick of seeing these kinds of smears against Sanders. He's done more for working Americans than any conservadems, who also have military projects in their back yards.

[Nixie]

9. Lots of people are "sick of smears". So sick of it.

It looks like if you like the politician, then that’s the priority. Of course, there’s always the opposite to that as the MAGATs show.

[lapucelle]

12. The problem of TV show hosts who pander to sponsors is best taken up with the hosts themselves.

Last edited Fri Nov 19, 2021, 10:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Similarly questions about the "price" of access is another issue best addressed by those seeking access.

I'm not aware of any great accomplishment that the junior senator from Vermont has achieved for working Americans. Moreover, unlike some more moderate Democratic colleagues, he has a mixed record on voting for the Biden agenda.


=========================================================





=========================================================

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

[FoxNewsSucks]

15. Didn't someone say giant fonts and charts don't prove anything?

I know I read that somewhere. . . .

Anyway, that chart is useless. It only shows votes on things that were actually allowed to come to a vote. A chart showing the positions of politicians on all proposals, including those blocked by conservatives, would be far different.

Few have worked harder to support Biden and his agenda than Sanders and the rest of the progressives. Conservatives, whether conservadems or asshole republicons, are the ones thwarting it.

[George II]

17. That's how legislating works. Representatives and Senators vote on legislation and they either....

....pass or they fail.

For the life of me I can't recall in my 50+ years of following politics a bill becoming law without both houses conducting votes and passing it.

The proof is in the voting.

[FoxNewsSucks]

18. Not denying that technical truth

I'm also not denying the fact that that single statistic is not a reliable indicator of who is working for and with the president and who is not.

It simply does not prove what those posting it want it to prove.

[lapucelle]

39. The chart shows the percentage rate of a legislator having voted for the Biden agenda.

From that data a voter can extrapolate the percentage rate of a politician having voted against the Biden agenda. Policy positions ring hollow if one will not even vote to support the Democratic president's legislative efforts to actually achieve meaningful goals.

Two small points: My post said that fonts and graphics in support of "whataboutism," do not change the fact that the junior senator from Vermont works hard to secure the funding for the very type of wasteful defense program that Chris Hayes was supposed to be addressing. The fonts and maps still don't change that fact.

In contrast, my graphic supports the contention that the fiery independent senator has a mixed record of supporting this Democratic president's agenda.

Anyone unhappy with the size of 538's headline font or the actual scale of their graphic should address the concerns to Nate Silver. I'm sure he'll take all suggestions under advisement. Here's a different version for anyone unhappy with the original.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Me.]

55. Come Now

you know he has done a great job of naming post offices.

[Nixie]

6. So the money doesn't matter if it's "old news"?

How does this work? Only Bernie gets to point fingers?

[Budi]

5. He scored quite a massive deal with the F-35

Way back in 2016/17, it was even a boon to his State & as the article tells, it was never objected to when it came to cost, profit, nor the purpose of it's use.
Which is of course, Military/War/Spending Budget.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-loves-this-dollar1-trillion-war-machine

2016/17
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Sen. Bernie Sanders has railed against big defense corporations at rallies, but he has a more complex history with the military-industrial complex. Most notably, he’s supported a $1.2 trillion stealth fighter that’s considered by many to be one of the bigger boondoggles in Pentagon history
More...

He has enjoyed the long serving benefits of the F-35 for his own State, on one hand, while admonishing everyone else for the same on the other hand.

Military Budget.
Pentagon.
Spending!

[Celerity]

8. the F-35 programme teams with nearly 1,800 domestic suppliers in 45 states plus Puerto Rico

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-global-partnership.html


Yet the same small group always singles out Vermont and pretty much Vermont alone for a kick-about.

Go figure.





https://www.f35.com/f35/about/economic-impact.html

[lapucelle]

10. Hayes's guest was the junior senator from VT, and the topic was a defense budget bloated

by wasteful spending largely driven by the profit-hungry military industrial complex and enabled by politicians with pet pork projects some of which have an demonstrable negative environmental impact on constituents.

When Chris Hayes invites politicians from the other states who work hard to keep cash in the coffers of corporations whose profits rely on wasting $1,500,000,000,000 of the federal budget on war machines, he can ask them the same question.

Was Hayes's reason for not asking, "Well, other politicians do it too"? Was it "It's different when politicians I like and have access to are responsible for the problem"?

Giant fonts and oversized maps don't change the facts.

[betsuni]

11. +1

[Celerity]

13. You still are, and likely always will be, guilty of cherry picking out not only just one state, but

Last edited Fri Nov 19, 2021, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

furthermore selecting only one of that state's main elected federal and statewide leaders there for continual attack and criticism when it comes to the F-35 programme.

You ignore the Vermont governors, you ignore Senator Leahy, and you ignore Representative Welch, all of whom also are extremely supportive and effective in helping Vermont procure parts of the programme, and wilfully choose to only single out Senator Sanders.

Also, if you are so concerned about waste of money, why not have a go at NH and all their leaders? They are right next door to Vermont, and dwarf it in terms of dollars spent there. Vermont is a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall $1.5 trillion (which is spread out over 55 years).

If you are truly concerned about fiduciary wastage, why not take up the cause of attempting to end the entire programme?

Go after that goal of ending the entire programme with all the vigour and determination you display in attacking Sanders if you are as truly concerned about it wasting money and you now are claiming.

I so doubt you will do that, as you are simply using this selective F-35 fauxrage as a means (one of many variants you and a few others employ tirelessly) to bash Sanders. It has been transparent for me since I joined DU in summer 2018 and saw the wailing and gnashing of teeth over AOC when she beat Crowley in the primary.

The same group that most energetically and relentlessly attacked her also attacked Sanders, and then the rest of the Squad. A clear pattern of attack was soon so obvious for me. One would have to blind to not see it. That pattern continues to this day and no doubt will continue, as will my defence of them when I feel it is warranted.

It is always the same small group of names, who turn up (often in a swarm) on many, if not most threads having to do with Bernie, AOC, and the rest of the Squad. It also is almost always the same old tired lines of attack, repeated ad nauseam. They are overall ineffectual and have become so predictable that one could set their watch to them.

From what I see, very few on here still (if they ever did) buy what you and the others are selling with these relentless and repetitive attacks, as the clear majority of positive replies and affirmations to the prog kick-abouts usually come from the same small circle of aforementioned people.

Not only that, but the overall effect of all this constant bashing is actually having the opposite effect in terms of rallying numbers to your cause. I have been pleasantly surprised to have seen numerous posters who once perhaps, especially the newer ones, were partially sympathetic to your modus operandi, but now no longer join in, and in fact often defend Sanders and the Squad.

Giant fonts and oversized maps don't change the facts.

Erm, they are simple snapshots that help easily prove my point, and all you offer in counterargument is weak attempted diminution and snark that in no way refutes anything.

[lapucelle]

14. Erm, the junior senator from the state I "cherrypicked" was Hayes's guest last night,

and the topic was the bloated defense budget.

It was Hayes who cherrypicked the guest, cherrypicked the topic, and then cherrypicked exactly which votes in favor of or against wasteful defense spending (that also negatively impacts the environment) would be discussed last night.

Isn't Hayes supposed to be smart? Doesn't he know that voting records count?

[FoxNewsSucks]

16. AMEN!!!!!

Well said. I can't help but notice the glaring lack of response to those valid points.

[Nixie]

19. Changing the subject to DUers and other politicians

has nothing to do with the points about Bernie no matter how long the posts are or how much diversion (mentioning AOC, for instance).

[FoxNewsSucks]

20. Interesting that he's the only one who upsets some people.

Not a peep from those posters about any other rep

[Nixie]

22. It's also interesting how "some people" get upset when

he’s held to his own standards of supposedly critiquing others.

[FoxNewsSucks]

24. maybe that's not the reason

[Nixie]

26. Wow, if only the "real reasons" about Bernie could be spoken.

I hear you about “real reasons.”

[Eliot Rosewater]

49. Ya know what really GOD DAMN pisses me off? When someone implies Hillary

is only able to tweet and then compare that to someone who is still in office.

SHE WOULD BE IN OFFICE, AS IN THE OVAL OFFICE if some folks would NOT have TRASHED her 24/7 over 5 years ago and said SHIT like "Maybe I will vote for her, maybe I wont, but if I do I will have to hold my nose!"

Guess what FENCE SITTERS do when they hear that SHIT...yeah, they dont vote and TRUMP WINS

(not addressing you personally, using your post to make a point)

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[betsuni]

51. +1

[Nixie]

52. Great post and I feel the same way, Eliot. To diminish

Hillary yet again with dishonest cheap shots is despicable. Glad that BS is gone from this thread. She never deserved the dishonest crap thrown at her. She is still incredibly gracious and I admire her so much.

You nailed it, ER.

[Eliot Rosewater]

53. Thanks...to think this is ALL AVOIDABLE and yet the people who CONTRIBUTED to our

current NIGHTMARE still wont acknowledge their part in it.

God DAMMIT

[Nixie]

54. Exactly, and now the attempts to revise history.

I’m right there with you, and so is the electorate.

[FoxNewsSucks]

23. It really says something about them, doesn't it.

One would think a Senator caucusing with Democrats and working that hard for our good would be supported by everyone here.

[George II]

36. "Them"? Just who are "them" that you folks keep referring to. When I'm talking about DUers here....

....I use the term "We".

[FoxNewsSucks]

37. Interesting, because "we progressives" often feel

like a "them".

It's not hard to figure out why.

[George II]

42. I go out of my way to not divide Democrats into "we" and "them".

[FoxNewsSucks]

43. I wish more would.

But to go beyond the topic of this thread, progressives are taken for granted. Our votes are needed, and it's always "vote blue no matter who" then we're ignored until it's time to vote again. Obviously we know republicons are worthless, outright dangerous, and would never vote for them. But it gets old.

[Nixie]

25. Yet the wins keep piling up with the actual electorate, so

Last edited Fri Nov 19, 2021, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)

who is it that is really whining?

[George II]

29. "...fading away relegated to sending tweets from a den in Chappaqua." Just WHO are you referring to?

[marble falls]

30. Seems pretty straightforward and accurate to me. Good job!

[George II]

27. A few simple numbers about the F-35

285 total F-35s in the US fleet

50 states, each state should average under 6 F-35s each, Vermont has 20

330,000,000 people, with only 650,000 residents in Vermont, they should have 0.6. They have 20.

Suppliers to the manufacturer of the F-35 is irrelevant once they're built except for repair/replacement parts (which are few and far between for brand new aircraft). Many of those parts are third party (PMA) parts anyway, manufactured by non-Lockheed Martin suppliers and sold directly to the operators of the F-35.

[FoxNewsSucks]

28. Perhaps you should ask the Pentagon why that is.

They may have reasons unknown to us which account for how they decide distribution and where to station ships, troops and planes.

I doubt a simple even distribution among all 50 states is ever even considered for such a thing.

[George II]

32. As we all know, distribution of military equipment and personnel is subject...

....to intense political pressure.

Someone else yesterday who mentioned that they're based in close proximity to oceans or borders, but that's an incorrect assumption, too. There are many of these based in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and even Wisconsin.

Believe me, there's no strategic reason to base 15% of the F-35 fleet in Burlington unless there's an imminent threat of invasion and airstrikes from Québec.

[Nixie]

34. Great post, and as we can see from the responses, military spending

is essential after all, contrary to Bernie’s appearance on Chris Hayes which was a contradiction.

[Celerity]

31. you would never geographically equally divide deployment so that each state had the same number

50 states, each state should average under 6 F-35s each, Vermont has 20

You are exhibiting a significant lack of understanding when it comes geo-strategic spatial deployment, in order to try (and as usual fail) to score cheap political pot-shot points.

Good thing the US defence planning is not in your hands.

Oh, and spare me the (to paraphrase) 'Canada is not going to attack the US with airstrikes from Montreal' snark your tried to fob off in the recent past.



You know (or should) that minutes (if not seconds) are crucial for a vital component in a 'first line of defence' system.

Suppliers to the manufacturer of the F-35 is irrelevant once they're built

The vast bulk of the programme's costs ARE the design and building of the jet, so of course it is relevant when judging the dispersal of costs and per-state economic impacts on a holistic basis.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. You would think an someone on the upper end of the boomer generation would know ...

…. about the history of our northern defenses like the 134th and DEW line and why we still station interceptors in the far northeast U.S.

[George II]

38. Hah, nice insult there. ....

Hassin Bin Sober

33. You would think an someone on the upper end of the boomer generation would know ...

…. about the history of our northern defenses like the 134th and DEW line and why we still station interceptors in the far northeast U.S.

Actually I do know quite a bit about the DEW Line.

The DEW Line was constructed in the 1950s, long before the widespread existence of supersonic aircraft. With aircraft like the F-35, which flies at 1200 mph, the DEW Line rendered useless in today's world and was deactivated almost 30 years ago.

An F-35 can fly from about the geographical center of the US, let's say Wichita Kansas, to Northern Canada in about an hour. The difference in flight time to Northern Canada from either Wichita or Burlington VT is only a matter of minutes. So where they're based is operationally irrelevant.

So there you go, and with me being "on the upper end of the boomer generation", I truly appreciate the gratuitous, ageist insult. Thanks again!

[George II]

35. The F-35 has already been designed and the 285 that are deployed around the country have already....

....been manufactured.

Most of the post-manufactured cost of any aircraft is associated with staffing, maintenance, repair, and fueling.

Again, the actual suppliers to Lockheed Martin is irrelevant in the after market.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

40. Have you done the math on why North Dakota got such a high rate of nuclear warheads?

Must have been some intense political pressure that made that happen and not, you know, strategic placement of the weapons for shorter delivery time.

[George II]

41. I'm discussing where the F-35 aircraft are deployed. Where nuclear warheads are is irrelevant.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

44. So military strategy applies to warheads but not aircraft?

[George II]

45. Fighter jets and nuclear warheads are two entirely different weapons/equipment....

...with entirely different purposes and entirely different strategic uses.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

46. Of course. Are you arguing that there is no strategic reason to have them in Vermont?

I would guess they put them where they will be deployed the quickest to the most likely target. Just like, you know, the reason that warheads were put in North Dakota instead of distributing them equally among all 50 states which would have been ridiculously foolish to do.

[George II]

47. For a supersonic fighter jet, I see no strategic reason. Do you?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

48. I am not a military air strategy expert? Are you?

[George II]

50. No I'm not, which is why I didn't introduce it into the discussion.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

56. Well, you did introduce it when you said there was no real reason for the fighters to be in Vermont.

Clearly your strategic experience is making it clear.