I am supposed to support Debbie Wasserman-DINO, down here in Florida, and she specializes in torpedoing Progressives and liberals.

Oh, the smell of desperation...

Reeks of desperation, indeed.

The liberty union party of Vermont now. Lol. It really is a great sign that they are trying so hard yet this is the worse they can muster.

Shows that Bernie's rise concerns them and there is very little for them to work with.

Maybe if some "folks" were less fixated on other "folks" around here, this place would be a little more tolerable.

Them, them, them. They, they, they, etc...


Backbiting nonsense.

Are far more important than any discussion of issues.

Hillary supporters post about Bernie supporters and vice versa. It's strange and not meaningful or productive, but the traffic would plummet if that changed. I find it all rather amusing how serious posters take themselves here.

you're relatively new, as far as that goes.

I've been around almost 10 years, but the petty sniping and backbiting over the last several years have essentially rendered this place unreadable.

I don't know, maybe it's always been this way for you.

But yeah, you're right. It's neither meaningful nor productive.

....because today's platform is the most important.

However, it's important to note that Bernie wasn't always where he is today with regards to dirty politics. His hands are dirty. We have been told over and over that today's Bernie is the same as past Bernie. Common sense says that everyone evolves, but again we are told Bernie didn't need to evolve he's always been xxxxxx..so now the anti Clinton group a have one less arsenal in their rhetoric....not unless they want to sound hypocritical. Unfortunately, that same group will ignore this historical inconvenience.

I guess after 20 years, the word has caught on...she is high profile for good or bad. But Bernie is no saint and I will no longer lay quiet when that lies is bandied about.

When they realize Bernie is no saint, and that all of the unattainable standards they are trying to hold Hillary to, are going to be laid at the feet of their favorite candidate.

she is more aligned with the 1%, Teabaggers and the rest of the Republican party won't make mincemeat out of her, being uncomfortable is good sometimes, being Humiliated all the time will turn you in to a monster .

very soon the gloves will come off and truth posts on DU will seem mild in comparison. And you cant jury the press. Real world and all that. But of course BS supporters just love the press... And Clinton won't let them close to her. She's using ropes to block them. OH THE HORROR!

for good or for bad...mostly bad. I respect Sanders. He is a good man. If the press can find anything, they will. Some will create what they cant find. BS supporters can't protect him by hiding his past or trying to deify him. It's there available with a push of a button. The MSM has a lot of buttons.

I think most of the rest of us, particularly those who pay any attention at all, don't trust much we hear. ymmv

But Bernie supporters are upholding the press as a bastion of honesty and decency on the "ropes" thread. The DU Sanders team need to make a decision if the press is worthy or not...or does it all depend on what they last said about their candidate?

on the "ropes" thread" mean?

And speaking for myself, not the "DU Sanders team", I say the press is totally unworthy and has been for decades--on nearly any subject, but particularly on bullshit horserace national elections.

Happens to all of us.

I read that thread.

Before the election. It is brought up here frequently.

Thinkingabout, and I know you are a staunch Hillary supporter, but this?

"Bernie became an imperialist to get elected in 1990."

That's about as credible as saying that Hillary Clinton prayed to a Satanic altar to get Bill elected in 1992.

It's just some dumb, crackpotology.

Watch out world - the IMPERIALIST Bernie Sanders is COMING FOR YOU ALL!

I mean wtf? We don't have to go here for our respective candidates to win - it makes Democratic supporters on the whole look like freaking idiots no matter who we support.

The Clintons has been hit with crap for years and it will happen to Bernie also if he goes very far in the primaries. Yes I am a Hillary supporter. I am not angry at Bernie, and there are some issues he will have address. The talking points here are worn out and not true, I accept Hillary is not perfect. Not a problem for me to admit short comings but she isn't on a pedestal.

Every one of our candidates get smeared with the same crap, and we need to push back on it. I'll push back on it if I see Hillary smeared on it, too.

This is some weird out of nowhere stuff, though ...

It would be nice to get the trollers out and banned, it can be done. I'll work on the Hillary supporters and we can go on to the debates and allow the candidates run and sell themselves, we are better than this. I know it would make Skinner happy.

I think you have the same idea I have, let's build our candidates up instead of tearing them down.

We DO NOT need to Republicans work for them.

…evidence of Sanders not being a saint?

This article falls very flat.

I think every person who supports a political candidate understands that their candidate is imperfect. No one expects perfection.

Remember all of the baggage that Obama came with? No one cared. His supporters liked his policies and what he was saying.

No one cares about garbage like this, any more than and Democrat cared about Reverend Wright or Obama's "bitter clinger" comment, Bill Ayers, or the fact that he admitted that he inhaled, etc. Those were scandals, some with more traction than others--but they made no difference.

If this is all that anyone has on Sanders--I think most people would agree that he's pretty scandal-free.

Of actual democrats, most like or at least respect her.

...wait a minute, according to many BS supporters here on DU people don't really evolve, it's just a show.

Never mind.

COMPREHENSIVE to say .

Of course, silly me...only Clinton has to pre plan what she has to say. Sanders just opens his mouth and words of infinite wisdom just pour forth.

Except when he's yelling at hecklers to shut up.

Then not so much.

This week... In the real world ... Brought 5 more friends into the Hillary camp. 27 so far voting for the coranated queen.

And you... Or do you just rant on message boards.

Clinton 2016

you woek on K-Street with the rest of the Groupies who don't even know who their canidate is .

On Sun Jul 5, 2015, 11:06 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I got blocked in your group for ASKING a question, so cling on to those bits of 27, and make beleive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=425669

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

So sick of this guy's attacks and name calling. If you don't have anything substantial to add to a discussion and your only purpose is to be rude and disruptive, try trashing the thread or at least refrain from attacks and name calling. This is the kind of thing that makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 5, 2015, 11:16 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is much rudeness at DU. And much passion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You have to be kidding...
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

So sick of this guy's attacks and name calling. If you don't have anything substantial to add to a discussion and your only purpose is to be rude and disruptive, try trashing the thread or at least refrain from attacks and name calling. This is the kind of thing that makes DU suck.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Jul 5, 2015, 11:16 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is much rudeness at DU. And much passion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You have to be kidding...
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

to remember his vague platitutes. cuz he deals in facts. and he knows his stuff.

can't wait for the debates

Shes evil incarnate because she uses technology and has long speeches. Again, THE HORROR!

Scrape deeper... Maybe she even writes her speeches on a 'GASP' computer!



Edited for smiley...gota have the smiley

if she actually spoke substance, not vague general platitudes and sound bites.

if she doesn't get specific in the debates, her already sinking ship will hit bottom.

Nope...no substance here.

tpp, iraq war,etc......

i would love to hear talk about those and say she represents the progressive interests

too bad she can't.

Still campaigning and voting for Clinton as are most of my family and friends. Good try though. May want to find a new Hillory bashing site though afteer she wins the primaries..DU TOS and such. Have a blessed day.

there is a reason she lost in 2008 even though it was "inevitable."

It didn't seem to hurt his elections either time lol. Wtf is the problem with teleprompters?

it isn.t the prompter, although bernie's recall of facts without one always impresses me.

fwiw, I think the president does much better off the cuff, too

As for the bullshit to attempt to pass off as baseless critism that Hillary has no policy...wow.

It's bernie that has the fall on our swords rhetoric, to enrage his crowd about inequalities and never has a fix for the problem. And before you start, every Dem candidate wants to raise taxes on the rich...that is nothing new.

it is just suggesting that she is annoying and unimpressive. i am happy to say that about any candidate of any party if the shoe fits.

And a stupid meme that the right wing used quite frequently against Barack Obama. I am equally impressed with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's speaking abilities. And equally appalled at those who use stupid right wing memes to attack Democrats on DU.

but if she doesn.t want to lose this one like she lost last time, she is going to need to be clear and specific on issues. i never said she didn't speak well. but she does too much dancing around specifics. it didn't work last time, and it won't work this time.

from "speech coached soliloquies, with nothing COMPREHENSIVE to say" reminds me of a Palin word salad

Never mind that he voted to FUND Bush's Iraq War at EVERY opportunity after that symbolic, no-chance-of-success vote.

If he really disliked the war that much, he wouldn't have voted to fund it. Over and over again, too.

Can't tell people about REALPOLITIK, though--they think principle rules the day, when it's really about acquisition and maintenance of power and influence.

down the black hole for the F-35 Turkey at $257 million a pop. Meanwhile test pilots are telling the brass that the thing can be outfought by the supposedly ooutmoded F-16 and its "stealth" feature is ineffective against outmoded radar.

Now, how many kids would that money send to college? How many elders could be helped with their Medicare costs? How many hungry people would it feed?

All politics is local--Sanders was taking care of his state, as other Senators take care of theirs.

Sometimes pork and principles conflict. No politician is immune!!!

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 12:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Maybe not everyone's kids and healthcare. Vermont's. Just like every red and blue state vies for those good old MIC billions and trillions.

When people talk about secrets and money disappearing, I just roll my eyes. It's public knowledge, if they would take it all in and think a minute. That money pays for members of their communities, even if it's not them. I've never made a direct profit from those jobs but may have benefited indirectly from a host of actions that could be considered abominable. What does one do while living under a social contract with others, then?

The Senators from a state are like barons who feed their people. Not all people, those with connections. Those who get the good salaries, are of every political persuasion.

Vermont still has poverty and begs for aid every winter for its citizens, although Vermont has a prosperous upper middle class building fighters.

Bernie makes the case for the poor but clearly not everyone in Vermont supports the programs for the poor with their money. They wouldn't pay enough taxes to fund the single payer health care some sought to get as allowable under the ACA. Or is it maybe they couldn't afford it?

Things are always more complicated than they appear. Just like things in the side view mirror are 'closer than they appear' since you're talking about someone's wages and quality of life.

Not saying the people of Vermont are bad people. This is in every state. Whether the deficit of unity is 'why we can't have nice things' and get a Scandinavian style system in the USA can be overcome, IDK. Their unity is built on 'we are all together' but we're determined to be different and individuals even if destroys it all.

Happy Fourth of July, what's left of it, MADem! This has been the warmest Fourth I've ever had over here, so that's something.

The considerations of Vermonters are different than those of, say, Bostonians or Angelenos or New Yorkers or Texans.

He dances with the ones what brung him, as does any Senator or representative.

The challenge for us voters is to pick leadership that can cover the waterfront, as it were...and the urban, rural, suburban, Black, white, Latino, and assorted immigrant communities' concerns, as well as understand and represent our place in the world. Like it or not, we as a nation have clout, and we need to continue to exercise it--hopefully as a force for good. If we abdicate, though, (and we shouldn't do that) the vacuum will be filled.

So, we need someone who can take care of business at home and abroad. That's what the primaries are supposed to sort out! And they will, even if that doesn't happen here on DU!!

Why call for Senator Clinton to go after her constituents?

That's like asking Florida Senators to regulate and destroy tourism or demanding that Martin O'Malley close down the Navel Academy! Ain't gonna happen.

Sure, we all want appropriate regulations - but most people don't think that as Senators or any legislator would fail to represent their state - but then they turn around and expect Hillary to openly and publicly attack the biggest trade and economic engine in the history of the world - one that historically has created more wealth that most of the rest of the world combined in the last 50-60 years. Hillary was not responsible for Reagan and the Bush's and deregulation.

Problems exist of course. We all know now that deregulation and banking abuse need a fix. Why accuse Hillary of being so horrible? She is aware of the problems and also the need to avoid a crisis (like Greece), and limitations (it would be silly to attempt an Iceland solution in the US). In fact, Wall Street is just as worried and suspicious of a Hillary as anyone. They know that Bernie would be completely ineffective and unable to pass any new radical bills, so Hillary is more of a threat to real Wall Street reform.

Reforming bank and corporation behavior will be a war - complicated, one battle at a time, and requiring a supportive Congress. Obama did what he could with expiring tax cuts, fines, and a few small fixes. We all would have preferred a stronger prosecution of CEO's, closing tax loopholes, pulling in some international havens, and less speculation. OTOH, inflation and jobs are not great, but OK. Carter got blindsided by the inflation thing and it really hurt him. There is open awareness now of problems that no one ever heard about before 2008. If we elect a Democratic President and Congress, then you will see some reform; not everything will be repaired, but that's our best bet.

It should also be apparent that a President has to lead all of We, The People, not just the select few that agree with a certain POV/attitude. President Kucinich and his "Department of Peace" never happened--and never will. That's just reality.

I'm certainly not accusing HRC of being horrible--at this point in time I intend to vote for her in the primary.

I think Hillary is our best bet for now. There have been lots of attacks on candidates that don't make sense. One is to ask why Hillary as a Senator did not burn down Wall Street.

As much as I appreciate the populist enthusiasm, instead of bashing Hillary people might be better to spend their time and energy getting out the vote. If we don't have a big turnout, Democrats will loose.

I've listened to Bernie on Thom Hartmann for years. He is certainly entertaining - but he also has a bunch of ideas that are not well thought-out.

Hillary may not be as dynamic a speaker as Obama or others, but in many ways she seems more detailed than any President we've had lately. Think about it, a path to citizenship will affect a LOT of issues - even gerrymandering in states like Florida where immigrants are not counted as black, but would vote Democratic if legal. Those far-reaching ideas are clear with Hillary , early education/day care, women's pay, and voting rights. She really understands social justice.

Her international experience, even before becoming SoS, is way more extensive than any other candidate from any party.

Maybe she is a little less dynamic, but I'm convinced she would make good decisions. I will vote for the Democrat, but I like Hillary best.

keep on digging. It is always best to clear everything
up, instead of hiding it for days or weeks and at last
coming out with a lame excuse.

BTW, it is also well known that Bernie can get very
angry.
guess what though; if he had not gotten as angry
as he is with the country's problems, he would not
have agreed to run.

to trashing hillary's old view on marriage.

plus it sounds like an unsubstantiated rant.

the hrc camp must be REALLY scared

I agree with Senator Sanders. Liberating Kosovo and ending ethnic cleansing was noble and represented our highest values.

....done.

but I also grew up in Europe.

What we should have done (I know it sounds stupid) build
a fence around the whole area, let them fight it out and
bring the winners to court afterwards. Jugoslavia was always
a place of no peace, and, pardon me, I don't think it is
different even now. May be for a while due to suffering,
it may lick its wounds, but that whole area does not
believe in "peaceful coexistence".

"we won't do anything decision".

You honestly think that wouldn't have resulted in a far worse genocide?

Fencing people into a religious and ethnic cage match has never worked out well.

than the limited bombing campaign that was done? Not to make light of the civilian deaths and suffering that did occur from the bombing, but I think even the worst kind of idiot can see that that option is much less destructive than letting them kill and maim each other with impunity.

Yes, things were broken and people were killed but that has to be weighed against the evil of allowing Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing to continue unchecked.

and stopping genocide is one of them. No one likes war and civilian deaths are always tragic, but in my opinion its a far greater crime to stand back and do nothing and watch it happen. I wonder about people who think that is somehow more moral and enlightened than intervening. If you witnessed a woman getting raped on the street, are people going to sing your praises if you just walk on by and allow it to happen? No, they're going to call you a coward and wonder what the hell is wrong with you. So why do so many so-called liberals and champions of human rights think it's okay to just allow people to be butchered in ethnic cleansing and not lift a finger to help?

I think we should have intervened in Rwanda too.

eom

It was messy, and there really wasn't a way to make it less messy by leaving it alone because it would have exploded into a situation that ended up far worse.

There wasn't a good damn decision to be made that didn't include *not* making one turn out worse.

Which was an essay about preventing sexual assault of women ... but hey, he said the words "sexual assault" and "women" in the same sentence so he must be ALL for it ...

He didn't talk about "raping" anyone, he put his foot wrong when he averred, stupidly, that women liked "rape fantasies." It was a bone-headed, ham-handed work of fiction that he has disavowed. Misrepresenting it, or pretending that others have misrepresented it when the actual truth of the thing is awful and stupid enough-- doesn't help him at all.

That image with that particular sentence is a tactical mistake. It doesn't help him at all.

misrepresented.

I had every intention of showing how absolutely ludicrous it was.

"Writes essays that put women in an unfavorable light."

Now if that isn't a smear, I don't know what is, so no, I'm not going to get busy being un-offended by it.

We're all on the same side, but some people say things that are so messed up you have to respond.

You are reasonable. You should look at the drive by post that triggered my comments.

I've never seen anything close to what is claimed in that ill-advised picture. Hopefully there's not more of this kind of thing out there (essayS??), or if there is, not TOO much--it could become a bit of a distraction.

What he actually said in that piece of shit writing was bad enough--and he totally acknowledges that it was some crap writing, and he has said that isn't how he feels and that the essay was awful fiction.

No need to gild the lily--it's hard to make what was actually said worse.

Not that it matters, anyway.

One can't play the "unforgiven" game--if we demanded that everyone around us be perfect 24-7, we'd have no friends or associates.

Senator Sanders is a lousy fiction writer; he shouldn't quit his day job and try to sell a potboiler to Penguin Books. He knows this, and good for him for recognizing that steamy writing isn't where his talents lay.

He's good at other things, though, certainly, and good for him that he puts his energies into public life.

is which candidate puts peas in their guacamole? I can forgive that, but are there sunflower seeds and sprouts too?

We all need a come to Jesus meeting and I mean Jesus Hernandez the chef.

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/02/419405952/obama-weighs-in-no-peas-in-guacamole

time, more than most Dems do. There is nothing to be worried about with Bernie. He's not gonna go batshit, I don't think...

The only fear I have with him is that he says Israel is the key to fighting ISIS and he has always supported funding their defense. Maybe he sees stuff as a Senator we will never think about. If things get out of hand, and Israel is seriously attacked, IDK what he's going to do.

It's not the kind of military action he's called for the Saudis to do, to take their own mess with their religious wars. This would be something the American people, like it or not, are more likely to support for religious reasons. I don't think it would be religious for him, but strategic.

And then there we are. Just where Obama has striven hard to keep us out of over there. A war that has been going on in one way or another for thousands of years. We don't know what we're getting into, but it's an article of faith among Christians to protect Israel no matter what.

I don't want to see this. But I don't see him doing a PNAC like Bush. Obama resisted, he only did what treaties demand. But what if the scenario ends up the same because of alliances and national security interests?

Scary stuff...

turns out to be just an old, bad-tempered plough horse.

Last edited Sun Jul 5, 2015, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

They really are mainline positions of all Democrats. I don't want that to be disrespected and not strive for them.

I want those ideas supported and I want them clearly enunciated. If he fails miserably, will that not bury them, too?

I'd say the pink unicorn thing is from those who have not been in politics and are too immature to grasp there is huge opposition that yelling will not change. So it must be dealt with. For there are times when your 'enemy' will help you.

After decades in politics, BS is the same as HRC in knowing how to 'wheel and deal.' Those who don't accept that in a democracy, as opposed to a totalitarian state, one must compromise. To enforce one's iew of how our government is going to work and disregard the views of others, is not even a 'little d' form of democracy, and not Democratic. Some of those same people from all sides of politics want unilateral control over the lives of others and that's what we must reject. So we 'wheel and deal.'

Not because of lack of principles but because of having principles. The main one being the principle of all being equal and getting their say and their share. Immature people get petulant because they don't get everything, which results in them getting nothing they want. By doing so, they give their 'enemy' exactly what they want.

What it would come down to in the end, if BS is elected, is what will he do for everyone, not just what his principles or set of beliefs demand, but how he will govern over 300 MILLION people, of which we can assured, half of the voters will hate him with a passion and fight him no matter what he does. That includes the fans of the billionaire class who will no doubt call for his death as they have for Obama, who has been among the most transforming of all Democratic presidents with his belief that he will take care of everyone no matter what. So many that hated him for Obamacare now enjoy the benefits, yet their hatred seeks another fault with him. BS would inherit the same milieau.

And foreign affairs? Sanders will have to follow all the treaties we have signed and defend them. He will compromise, as he has with his support of Israel and the F-35. He sees a foreign policy role for the United States of America and is not a pacifist. How many that support him realize those will be among his responsibility as POTUS?

They need to think in terms of what kind of governance they are voting for and I contend other than style, and single minded emphasis, there will be little difference in practice between a BS presidency and any other Democrat. Single mindedness will not accomplish in a nation of hundreds of millions and a world of billions of people.

Strong men rulers have tried and failed that, and may they always fail. Don't expect BS will turn the ship of state around with the flick of a finger. Obama knew and said on the campaign trail that difficult days were on the way and people would need to be more self-sufficient.

IDK what presidents are presented with in those last days before they are inaugurated, the true state of affairs, but do know they come into possession of the kind of knowledge others don't have. Just as they are invested with the launch codes for the American nuclear arsenal. PBO inherited what nearly every POTUS in times of crisis did - a bankrupt nation. Even the Founders had to pay the Crown after the Revolution to make peace. The nation was bankrupt after all of its wars, civil and foreign.

That is what Obama had put on his plate, no matter what he expected. So will Sanders. It will not be about the pure dreams some have, but about a very unpleasant job.

about is Sanders' apparently unshakeable belief that economic justice will result in social justice. That's just "trickle down" with a shiny new label. We already know it doesn't work.

He also seems to have very shaky people skills. Yelling "Shut up!" at a person trying to ask a reasonable question or trying to give him information he may not want to hear isn't the kind of behavior I want in a policy maker.

just a pile of ASSERTIONS from someone who felt Bernie wasn't a pure enough Socialist
This is GARBAGE.

if you would like me to start posting the kind of unsubstantiated garbage like this
about Hillary
I can do that for you. It can be filled with unsubstantiated assertions and unsourced quotes combined with an unsubstantiated assertion about the meaning of the quotes.

yep, two (sides) can play at this game.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that there is an absolute mountain of unsubstantiated garbage out there about HRC.
Soooooo, please proceed, Hillarians.

Being a Hillary supporter is no picnic.

Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion

By Carl Gibson - 03 June 14

Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”

That was the exchange I had with US senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a town hall in Warner, New Hampshire, this past weekend (skip to the 45:30 mark of this video to hear my question). Sanders came to New Hampshire to gauge the local response to his economic justice-powered platform for a presumed 2016 presidential campaign. While his rabid defense of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and takedown of big money running politics was well-received, he contradicted his position of eliminating wasteful military spending while defending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.

To his credit, Sanders acknowledged that the program was “wasteful” in his defense of it. The contention over the F-35 in his home state of Vermont is that the program is now responsible for jobs in his hometown of Burlington, where he served as mayor before running for Congress. Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesn’t want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And that’s where Lockheed Martin’s political savvy comes into play.

War hawk John McCain (R-Az.) has called the F-35 program a “scandal and a tragedy” in the past. But when an F-35 squadron came to the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, McCain changed his tune to say the program was “moving in the right direction.” Lockheed Martin, which draws 82 percent of all revenue from taxpayers (Lockheed’s information systems department gets 95 percent of its money from taxpayers), knows that by spreading out manufacturing as widely as possible, the program is more likely to be funded by politicians beholden to voters who draw their livelihood from the F-35. Lockheed spent $15.3 million on lobbying politicians in 2012, a year in which the company made $47 billion in revenue. That’s a return on investment in the thousands of percentage points. Lockheed gets paid, and politicians get re-elected. That’s how Washington runs.

So, while Bernie Sanders is saying we should cut military spending to fund free college for everyone, his defense of the F-35 means that despite everything else, Sanders is still just a politician. Sooner or later, the F-35 will eventually be replaced by something even more expensive, while the F-35 joins the thousands of other unused fighter jets in the boneyard. But rather than lying to people and saying the program is already a done deal and that there’s nothing he can do, Sanders could stand by his principles and introduce an amendment in the next National Defense Authorization Act to strip the F-35 program of its funding. That remaining $700 billion could make college tuition-free for everyone for at least a decade.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

I have some ideas and some questions for anyone to answer:

Bernie wants free college tuition, infrastructure jobs, singly payer health care, and other things.

Question: Can the F-35 be called an infrastructure job? The writer of the article is critical on the free college tuition promise. Can one pay for the other?

(I can't figure this out.)

Question: Can he support VT, the USAF, NATO, the mega defense contracting corporation Lockheed Martin at the same time?

(Well, he does, but which one is more important - those interests or peace, healthcare, etc.?

Only his heart knows. He stresses economic growth - is it just any kind of economic growth?)

Question: Can we change our manufacturing base to something else, or is there a bigger picture we don't want to look at that Bernie, Hillary and the President see, with ISIS and other groups?

(I think there is - but I also think as the saying goes 'You can't handle the truth,' said a bad guy in a movie who I believe went to prison or something for doing. not. nice. things, that we need to understand what we are dealing with sans the fear and cynicism, as both action just let it happen.)

Question: Are we being childish or kidding ourselves about our demands for peace?

(I've almost concluded that is exactly what a lot of our angst is about, and not matter how we rage, we're not being straight about this as it's too painful.)

Question: Or are these people disingenuous - or are the things they say we don't want to hear the truth we can't accept?

(As I said above, I'm starting to question the motives of the people who vote for, don't vote, or prefer illusions about how the world is run - and deny their part in the system they say they hate but they still demand more than can be morally provided in the absolutist terms we like.)

I've pondered these questions for many years, and find myself on the cusp of deciding what my position ought to be for my own peace of mind. Life isn't simple.

Where did you get 1999?

You must have me confused with a pacifist. In reality I am pragmatic.

would have preferred is their right to criticize yet Bernie made strategic advances to work within the
system to further a progressive agenda where possible. He did not create the system and
I have said before, why is this peaceful man who has worked so hard to further these causes
as a member of the system asking NOW for a political revolution? Because he is bored? Has nothing
better to do at his age?

How do you ever bring progressive ideas to the floor of the Congress when there is consistent
obstruction from a system that is no longer a democracy, but a plutocracy?

Think about what he is asking for Americans to do, and why he has made this statement:

“The best president in the history of the world – somebody courageous, smart, bold – that person will not be able to address the major crises that we face unless there is a mass political movement, unless there’s a political revolution in this country,”

Bernie's support of Bill is depicted as a great, great evil:
"Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership
in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally, Bernie has become an
ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In
1992 he described Clinton as the “lesser of evils,” (a justification
he used to denounce when he was what the local press called an
“avowed socialist”). By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified
endorsement. He has been a consistent “Friend of Bill’s” from
since 1992. One student I know worked on the Clinton Campaign
in 1996 and all across Vermont, Bernie was on the stage with
the rest of the Vermont Democratic Party Leadership, while the
unauthorized Democratic candidate for his Congressional seat was
kept out in the audience."
http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363

Do you agree with that? Is it very bad that Bernie endorsed Bill Clinton or appeared on a stage with-gasp- Democrats?
I can see why you did not include this portion, but frankly when you are posting this it is contradictory, because this writer dislikes Bernie in part because Bernie does not sufficiently dislike the Clintons.
And you agree with this stuff? Supporting Clinton and the Democrats makes a person an ardent Imperialist? This is a point of view you are advancing? Why?

I have to wonder at a piece that tosses that out there without additional comment, or context, and expects its research and opinion to be trusted.

http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363

I see the identical claim made, and still with no other info.

And btw, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia, weren't most Progressives in favor of opposing ethnic cleansing? The author of the criticism, Will Miller, assumes all good Progressives wanted NATO to sit on its hands?

"A large majority of U.S. House Republicans voted against both non-binding resolutions expressing approval for American involvement in the NATO mission."

"Damn you Sanders for not joining ranks with Republicans, and opposing the Democrats." :shakes fist:

A little bit angry, a little bit confused, but always entertaining. I wonder what they have to say about Hillary Clinton?

This is a blog post by the third party that he used to be part of until he left it. I mean seriously how low is this