Support NeoGAF

[Plumbob]

Bernie bros as a term is as old as Bernie's popularity. It's evolved with the campaign but it's largely a fictional identity that morphed to fit certain strategic political objectives of the Clinton campaign

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

There was one a few weeks back that made the rounds and if those numbers were real, Bernie is winning 18-24 whites huge, losing 18-24 blacks just as big, and is barely winning 18-24 hispanics. From there he has a decent win with 25-30 whites, loses 25-30 blacks huge and also loses 25-30 hispanics a decent amount. After that it's all Hillary.

That's interesting. Anecdotally, I only know of one for-sure Clinton supporter regardless of race. Then again, I'm in Los Angeles in the entertainment industry. Probably skews more liberal than average no matter the ethnicity.

 

[Jay-Hova]

It's more a white voters under-35 problem, she's clearly winning AA's and is competitive with hispanics in that demo.

"Bernie bros" refers to those 18-25 year old white guys on Twitter and Reddit that freak out and say overtly sexist and racist things to whoever criticizes Sanders. It doesn't refer to actual male Sanders supporters below the age of 35.

No it doesn't.
It refers to white male Bernie supporters that say things that dissent from what you all believe the accepted opinion should be that operates either intentionally or unintentionally as slander on Bernie, and I know what you're talking about.
A white man saying "BERNIE MARCHED WITH MLK!!!!" or some other clueless non malicious remarks about black voters or Bernie reaching out to black voters born out of enthusiasm which a lot of the complaints are about imo as a black man aren't remotely "racist", they're comments caused by a barrier in perspective/experience, like when I see white supporters acting as though Killer Mike is the king of black people, and it's just such a silly thing to get worked up over in my mind, especially when as a politician you're supposed to get as many people to vote for you as possible, bigoted or not as long as you're not racially inflaming people.
One of the reasons I hate #Berniebro's is how it not only generalizes his base, but it inherently speaks for minority/female supporters.
And by that I mean when BLM stormed his rally, it suddenly became the #Benriebro opinion for anyone to criticize them, of course in circles I speak in and site's I use just about every black Bernie supporter I knew was not happy with them and thought that they were sabotaging the best candidate for them when they could have attempted conversation with him prior before storming his rally which was a risky move and as we saw, has now damaged him in the eye's of many voters for reasons I cannot understand, a lot of them bought into the apparent Bernie bro George Soros thing.
Of course in my argument i'm not saying that they're any more right than the people who were against him, but what I am saying is that I know plenty of black men who spout of "Berniebro" rhetoric including about the black voter base in reference to Clinton, but why are they suddenly excluded from being under that label? Do they not share that opinion?
When I went to the Bernie club at school, and me, a black man mentioned that I would vote for Hilary if Bernie lost and the white girls who ran the club and the indian chick sitting next to me as well as the diverse group of people disagreed with me and said they wouldn't, did they suddenly become #Bernie-broettes? Because i've seen that propped up as a Bernie-bro opinion, hell i've seen someone on here claim it's Bernie-bro to call Hilary corporate.
It's just so silly in my mind to try and single out a portion of his voting base as being one way in a way that excludes entire portions of it when no matter who you're voting for you'll be voting alongside people you're ideologically opposed to.
Oh and the way people on here try to slander his entire base as Ron Paul numbers when Bernie's support/numbers would be impossible if that was the case.

 

[benjipwns]

So, I finally got around to reading this article in Foreign Policy: The Hillary Clinton Doctrine from late last year.

It's actually a pretty interesting insight into her right and wrong calls, her agreements and disagreements with other members of the administration, and the background and worldview behind the decisions she made or advocated. It's long, so I'm not sure anyone else will read it but it concludes:

One thing I noticed early. Bill is left out oddly for a piece about Hillary. Example:

Would a President Hillary Clinton practice a more enlightened version of George W. Bush’s bellicosity, rather than a more hard-nosed version of Barack Obama’s skeptical restraint? The very question exaggerates the difference between the two on the use of military power, since Obama has committed American forces across the globe and has made far more extensive use of drones that George W. Bush ever did.

Many of her advisers were in his administration in some form. He had the same interventionist policy, deploying American ground forces more times than the previous eight presidents or something combined. Usually for humanitarian/UN/etc. reasons. He even ignored a vote in Congress to continue the war in Kosovo. He bombed Iraq and elsewhere almost as regularly as Obama has used drones. Didn't really play hardball in favor of getting more agreements.

Kinda odd for Traub to ignore that "choice" of foreign policy even if you want to get away from Hillary/Bill stuff, you'd think being one of the last three Presidents that overrides any family stuff.

One former member of the SRAP team said that whenever he drew up a memo advocating talks with the Taliban, Holbrooke would tell him, "You'll never get this past Hillary."

 

[benjipwns]

Heh, ad I got on here:

Oh and the way people on here try to slander his entire base as Ron Paul numbers when Bernie's support/numbers would be impossible if that was the case.

True, Ron Paul was able to win Iowa.

 

[B-Dubs]

Heh, ad I got on here:

This ad deeply confuses me. Where did it lead?

True, Ron Paul was able to win Iowa.

YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

True, Ron Paul was able to win Iowa.

Listen, it was a cough and a shake!

 

[shinra-bansho]

One thing I noticed early. Bill is left out oddly for a piece about Hillary. Example:

Many of her advisers were in his administration in some form. He had the same interventionist policy, deploying American ground forces more times than the previous eight presidents or something combined. Usually for humanitarian/UN/etc. reasons. He even ignored a vote in Congress to continue the war in Kosovo. He bombed Iraq and elsewhere almost as regularly as Obama has used drones. Didn't really play hardball in favor of getting more agreements.

Kinda odd for Traub to ignore that "choice" of foreign policy even if you want to get away from Hillary/Bill stuff, you'd think being one of the last three Presidents that overrides any family stuff.

It is a notable omission yes, but the article seemed largely focused on her tenure and on the Obama administration in general. It only touches lightly on the Bush years, while the Clinton years although part of the last three Presidents was over a decade and a half ago.

It will be interesting to see what role he plays in the White House, if she ever gets there.

 

[benjipwns]

This ad deeply confuses me. Where did it lead?

I don't know, I can't get it back, and searching for "THE CFPB CASH COW" didn't return anything of value.

Maybe this post will get it to pop back up since I used CFPB which stands for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You know, the CFPB.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't know, I can't get it back, and searching for "THE CFPB CASH COW" didn't return anything of value.

Maybe this post will get it to pop back up since I used CFPB which stands for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You know, the CFPB.

I'm just trying to figure out what the hell the spin is. I can't tell if it's pro or con.

I keep getting Progressive ads with Flo myself.

 

[benjipwns]

Got one, it heads to: https://www.protectconsumers.com/

In 2011, Congress created an agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, also known as the CFPB.

The intentions of the CFPB were good. They were supposed to help citizens take more control of their personal finances through education.

However, there was just one problem…

When Congress formed the CFPB they didn’t make them accountable to anyone – not even the President.

The CFPB can do whatever it wants, spend what it wants and taxpayers are left footing the bill. There is no one to stop them or tell them “No”.

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
Dozens of official complaints have been filed against the CFPB for both gender and racial discrimination. There’s no sign of it stopping either as the number of complaints nearly tripled last year.

Women only make up 36% of the “Executive Leadership” of the CFPB and they make up a small percentage of the roles deemed to be “Mission-Critical” to the agency.
CFPB employees even nicknamed a division with many African-American employees as “the plantation”.

A former employee even painted a picture where black employees were constantly belittled – even to the point where they were stereotypically offered fried chicken at company lunches.


PADDING THEIR POCKETS
The CFPB set their own salaries making themselves the most lavishly paid in all of federal government.

There are nearly 1,500 people who are employed by the CFPB and the average salary is $10,000 every MONTH.

Hundreds of staffers are paid more than Supreme Court Justices, Members of Congress, and all 50 state Governors.

Over a dozen staffers that you have never heard of pay themselves more than Vice-President Biden.

LIVING LARGE ON THE TAXPAYERS’ DIME
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau spent nearly $216 MILLION of taxpayers’ money to build themselves an unnecessarily lavish office.

The CFPB office includes a waterfall, exotic plants and a sitting area specifically for “contemplation”.

To make matters worse, they were only budgeted to spend $55 million. Their spending spiraled out of control on lavish amenities resulting in them over spending by nearly $161 MILLION. To put that in perspective, they could have built four offices for the cost of just this one.

The Bellagio Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas cost less per square foot to build.


PLAGUED WITH SCANDAL & CORRUPTION
These and other abusive practices have caused the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be plagued with scandal & corruption.

The CFPB has destroyed the integrity of what was supposed to be a watchdog for the people and its rich executives have directly profited from the lack of oversight.

How is the CFPB supposed to be responsible for protecting Americans from unfair financial practices, when they have manipulated the system to boost their own bank accounts?

YouTube channel went up a month ago: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6U7N_7aRFBeq_QTmBmhpWQ

 

[Officerrob]

No it doesn't.
It refers to white male Bernie supporters that say things that dissent from what you all believe the accepted opinion should be that operates either intentionally or unintentionally as slander on Bernie, and I know what you're talking about.
A white man saying "BERNIE MARCHED WITH MLK!!!!" or some other clueless non malicious remarks about black voters or Bernie reaching out to black voters born out of enthusiasm which a lot of the complaints are about imo as a black man aren't remotely "racist", they're comments caused by a barrier in perspective/experience, like when I see white supporters acting as though Killer Mike is the king of black people, and it's just such a silly thing to get worked up over in my mind, especially when as a politician you're supposed to get as many people to vote for you as possible, bigoted or not as long as you're not racially inflaming people.
One of the reasons I hate #Berniebro's is how it not only generalizes his base, but it inherently speaks for minority/female supporters.
And by that I mean when BLM stormed his rally, it suddenly became the #Benriebro opinion for anyone to criticize them, of course in circles I speak in and site's I use just about every black Bernie supporter I knew was not happy with them and thought that they were sabotaging the best candidate for them when they could have attempted conversation with him prior before storming his rally which was a risky move and as we saw, has now damaged him in the eye's of many voters for reasons I cannot understand, a lot of them bought into the apparent Bernie bro George Soros thing.
Of course in my argument i'm not saying that they're any more right than the people who were against him, but what I am saying is that I know plenty of black men who spout of "Berniebro" rhetoric including about the black voter base in reference to Clinton, but why are they suddenly excluded from being under that label? Do they not share that opinion?
When I went to the Bernie club at school, and me, a black man mentioned that I would vote for Hilary if Bernie lost and the white girls who ran the club and the indian chick sitting next to me as well as the diverse group of people disagreed with me and said they wouldn't, did they suddenly become #Bernie-broettes? Because i've seen that propped up as a Bernie-bro opinion, hell i've seen someone on here claim it's Bernie-bro to call Hilary corporate.
It's just so silly in my mind to try and single out a portion of his voting base as being one way in a way that excludes entire portions of it when no matter who you're voting for you'll be voting alongside people you're ideologically opposed to.
Oh and the way people on here try to slander his entire base as Ron Paul numbers when Bernie's support/numbers would be impossible if that was the case.

There might be a ton of great points in there, but I'm not sure a lot of people are going to read a great big wall of text like that. With that said, when I think of a Berniebro, I think of Reddit. There is no defending most of the garbage going on over there

 

[benjipwns]

The website doesn't have any information about the group's sponsors, because "we don't want this to be seen as a partisan issue," said spokesman Steve Gates. But the organization's Warrenton, Va., address matches that of a lawyer who has registered several Koch-linked or -funded groups, such as Americans for Responsible Leadership and American Future Fund. Gates denied there's any relationship: "In no way, shape or form is this a Koch brothers thing. I'm a registered Democrat all my life." (A Koch spokesman didn't answer a request for comment.)

New details have emerged since PI reported Monday on Protect America's Consumers, a new front group taking aim at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This morning the group released three more ads.

The organization's website, in a bid to present bipartisan support, displays three quotes from Democratic members of Congress — Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Al Green (D-Texas), and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) — appearing to criticize the CFPB. All three members told PI they were displeased to discover their words taken out of context and used to misrepresent their views on the agency, which they support. The full quotations reveal that all three officials were defending the CFPB from being singled out for criticism.

— "This is an attempt to mislead the public," said Jocelyn Steele, a spokeswoman for Waters.

— "The quote is blatantly out of context,” said Brett Morrow, Ellison's communications director. "Congressman Ellison supports the CFPB and always has. This is the work of an 'astroturf' group — a fake grass-roots group-that is trying deceive the American people into abandoning the protections of the CFPB from predatory products and unscrupulous actors.”

— "I am no longer surprised by the questionable tactics utilized by those who desire to emasculate (in the short term) and eviscerate (in the long term) the CFPB," Green said in a statement. "I am committed to preserving, protecting and defending the CFPB."

The organization still won't say who's behind it. The address on its Virginia incorporation record matches the law firm Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky, which specializes in untraceable pressure groups for conservative causes and whose clients include Karl Rove's American Crossroads, Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential campaign and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The use of an expensive law firm to set up an anonymous entity suggests this is no small effort.

The only person who has been identified with the group, spokesman Steve Gates, worked for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity while it was caught feigning a grass-roots campaign, including sending forged letters to congressional offices. Gates didn't respond to requests for comment.

Protect America's Consumers is using similar tactics. Its website encourages visitors to contact their senators, based on their zip code. (PI wonders who would get the message when entering a D.C. ZIP code.) The suggested texts are oddly specific:

— "As a US Citizen with student loan and personal debt, I am concerned about the roles and responsibilities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ..."

— "As someone living on a fixed income, I appreciate that the government wants to make sure I’m protected from scam artists, but there has to be accountability to federal agencies ..."

— "I have been your constituent for many years and have always voted for you because I’ve believed you have my back ..."

A pre-exisiting anti-CFPB group, the US Consumer Coalition, issued a statement distancing itself from the new website. Curiously, Protect America's Consumers' barely-followed Twitter handle tweeted back, "thank you."

GASP KOCHTOPUS

cfpb is still dhs style kludge

 

[titiklabingapat]

I just want to point out that, while he's not doing that hot with white people, he is proposing some stuff that is long overdue, such as better connecting Brooklyn and Queens.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/nyregion/streetcar-line-between-brooklyn-and-queens-mayor-de-blasio-proposal.html

The only people that don't like this idea live in Staten Island, and that's because they wanted one first. Something like this is long overdue and at least someone gives a shit about Queens for once.


Oh I'm with you, I love the guy. He's the first mayor in my memory that cares about more than just Manhattan.

Unless those street cars are running exclusively on their own lanes, this line will be near useless.

I still do not get this love affair with street cars that are mixed in traffic. You see it in other cities too.

 

[B-Dubs]

Unless those street cars are running exclusively on their own lanes, this line will be near useless.

From the rendering the cars will have their own lanes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/nyregion/mayor-de-blasio-to-propose-streetcar-line-linking-brooklyn-and-queens.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fnyregion&action=click&contentCollection=nyregion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

Going from the proposed map, eastern queens is still straight fucked though.

EDIT: It's just that getting from Queens to Brooklyn (or the other way) either takes a car or a stupidly long subway ride, it's ridiculously underserved and anything is better than the nothing we have now.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Sanders received 100% of the vote in Dixville Notch.
Kasich came first with 60% to Trump's 40%.

It's happening.

 

[disastermouse]

Sanders received 100% of the vote in Dixville Notch.
Kasich came first with 60% to Trump's 40%.

It's happening.

Sarcasm, right? Dixville Notch is a non-town.

 

[B-Dubs]

Sanders received 100% of the vote in Dixville Notch.
Kasich came first with 60% to Trump's 40%.

It's happening.

I thought it was Hart's Location that was the big one.

Democrats:
Bernie Sanders – 12
Hillary Clinton – 7
Mark Stewart Greenstein – 2

Republicans:
Donald J. Trump – 4
Marco Rubio – 1
John Kasich – 5
Chris Christie – 2
Jeb Bush – 1
Ben Carson – 1

 

[Jay-Hova]

There might be a ton of great points in there, but I'm not sure a lot of people are going to read a great big wall of text like that. With that said, when I think of a Berniebro, I think of Reddit. There is no defending most of the garbage going on over there

Yah Reddit is a mess, I still don't believe the Sanders subreddit is as bad as i've seen some people claim though.
Just enthusiastic.
Edit:most of the time

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Sarcasm, right? Dixville Notch is a non-town.

It has nearly 13 people!

 

[benjipwns]

I still do not get this love affair with street cars that are mixed in traffic. You see it in other cities too.

BUT THE RICH HISTORY AND LEGACY:

EDIT: Couldn't find the one where it's all muddy and you see people ignoring the streetcar and then moving out of the way at the last second like that's how they feel the rush for the day.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Mark Stewart Greenstein – 2

Marco Rubio – 1

I foresee big things for Mr Greenstein if this trend holds.

 

[AniHawk]

Sanders received 100% of the vote in Dixville Notch.
Kasich came first with 60% to Trump's 40%.

It's happening.

kasichening

 

[Maengun1]

Yah Reddit is a mess, I still don't believe the Sanders subreddit is as bad as i've seen some people claim though.
Just enthusiastic.
Edit:most of the time

/r/SandersForPresident is fine for what it is. Like you said, it's mostly just hyper enthusiastic Bernie supporters campaigning for Bernie. Cool. The real dump is /r/politics, which has been 95% "Hillary is literally the antichrist and Hitler combined and if she wins the nom vote Trump for revenge" type posts for the last couple months. Half the stuff posted there is complete fabrications, and every piece of news, no matter what it is, is instantly decried as a Hillary conspiracy somehow.

 

[Black Republican]

Admitting he gave his kids the "be careful of cops" talk sure as shit didn't help.

the same people pissed about this were probably telling their own kids "we dont see race, everyone is equal"

 

[Jay-Hova]

/r/SandersForPresident is fine for what it is. Like you said, it's mostly just hyper enthusiastic Bernie supporters campaigning for Bernie. Cool. The real dump is /r/politics, which has been 95% "Hillary is literally the antichrist and Hitler combined and if she wins the nom vote Trump for revenge" type posts for the last couple months. Half the stuff posted there is complete fabrications, and every piece of news, no matter what it is, is instantly decried as a Hillary conspiracy somehow.

I can agree to that.

 

[danm999]

The default subreddits (or ones that were once default) tend to be awful places across the board.

There are some really neat subreddits though (and some horrific ones too).

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

the same people pissed about this were probably telling their own kids "we dont see race, everyone is equal"

As a society, at least among the white people, we've really conflated the ideas of being equal and having equality in a way that just fucks over a lot of folks. I'm sure most parents who say that have good intentions, but they really owe it to themselves and their kids to develop a more nuanced understanding of race relations. That said, it's hard to convince white people to do that when racism is really of no consequence to them.

 

[Jack Remington]

It's really a miracle we got the CFPB at all. I remember Republicans came out trying to take it down with zero fucks like that orc who suicide bombs Helm's Deep in TTT. It was like an existential mission for them. Then the whole battle about not giving it a director - that was some real disgraceful shit. And somehow we got it. Top 5 Obama accomplishment.

 

[East Lake]

So, I finally got around to reading this article in Foreign Policy: The Hillary Clinton Doctrine from late last year.

It's actually a pretty interesting insight into her right and wrong calls, her agreements and disagreements with other members of the administration, and the background and worldview behind the decisions she made or advocated. It's long, so I'm not sure anyone else will read it but it concludes:

Thanks for linking.

Clinton is a Cold War-era patriot who believes unambiguously that America is a force for good in the world. At the same time, it’s clear from conversations I had this summer with most of her senior staff members, as well as White House officials and outside advisors, that Clinton is a cautious figure who distrusts grandiose rhetorical formulations, is deeply grounded in the harsh realities of politics, and prefers small steps to large ones. Her belief in the use of American power has less to do with the humanitarian impulse to prevent injustice abroad than with the belief that only coercion works with refractory nations and leaders.

Does this paragraph not make sense to anyone else? The article doesn't really support the claim for being a force of good either.

A willingness to use force plainly does inform Clinton’s revivalist rhetoric about American global leadership; but to what extent? In June 2014, Robert Kagan, the foreign-policy analyst widely regarded as the leading voice of neoconservatism (he prefers the term “liberal interventionism&#8221 told the New York Times that he feels “comfortable” with Clinton’s foreign policy. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he said, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.” In 2011 Clinton put Kagan on the Foreign Affairs Policy Board, a standing group of outside advisors to the secretary.

!!!

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first chief of staff, held that Israel could persuade the Palestinians of their sincere commitment to a peaceful resolution only if they agreed to completely halt the building of settlements in occupied territory. Clinton repeated this unambiguous formulation both publicly and privately, to the Israelis. Nevertheless, by all accounts, she thought that it was a mistake to make a public demand that Israel would not accept. “She thought that would put us up a tree,” as one of her aides puts it. When I asked if that was a sign of her caution, he said, “That’s like saying I’m cautious because I don’t want to jump off the Triborough Bridge.”

Here's where it gets weird

Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s first chief of staff, held that Israel could persuade the Palestinians of their sincere commitment to a peaceful resolution only if they agreed to completely halt the building of settlements in occupied territory. Clinton repeated this unambiguous formulation both publicly and privately, to the Israelis. Nevertheless, by all accounts, she thought that it was a mistake to make a public demand that Israel would not accept. “She thought that would put us up a tree,” as one of her aides puts it. When I asked if that was a sign of her caution, he said, “That’s like saying I’m cautious because I don’t want to jump off the Triborough Bridge.”

Halting the settlements is just too politically difficult for the Israelis, Hillary's hands are tied.

What if we give them a few extra F-35's for free though? They might stop building for a few months.

At the same time, Clinton was careful not to throw herself (as Kerry since has) into what she considered a hopeless enterprise. Perhaps she was already thinking of her presidential ambitions, and concluded that prudence would serve her own interests better than derring-do; perhaps she just made a sober, and highly defensible, calculation that her efforts were better spent elsewhere. She appointed George Mitchell, a former senator and the successful mediator of peace talks between England and Northern Ireland, as her special envoy to the region. Mitchell shuttled back and forth between capitals trying to bring the two sides together; Clinton entered the process chiefly to prevent the talks from collapsing completely. That, however, is precisely what happened. In the fall of 2010, Clinton tried to persuade Netanyahu to agree to a further three-month moratorium on settlement-building. The Israeli prime minister responded by piling one exorbitant demand on top of another, including $2.75 billion to pay for 20 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Obama concluded that he was being taken for a ride, and instructed Clinton to scotch the deal.

But the deal was approved?

Israel signed a $2.75 billion contract with the U.S. in 2010 for a fleet of F-35s, at a cost of $96 million each, with deliveries beginning in December 2016.

I have to look to find out if they even bothered with the moratorium after lol. Lockheed is working overtime.

 

[benjipwns]

But the deal was approved?

I have to look to find out if they even bothered with the moratorium after lol. Lockheed is working overtime.

At $96 million a plane, that's 29 planes. Much better deal than 20.

 

[RastaMentality]

I hope Christie over performs in NH. he deserves some consolation for doing God's work last weekend.

 

[East Lake]

At $96 million a plane, that's 29 planes. Much better deal than 20.

Maybe it includes maintenance for when the software doesn't work. The haaretz link they provide doesn't even say Netanyahu demanded those thing, it says the opposite and that Obama offered him a deal he couldn't refuse. Idk. Sure something a little different happened behind the scenes.

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.643604

The Defense Ministry announced Sunday that it had signed a deal with the United States to purchase 14 more F-35 planes for the Israel Air Force at $110 million dollars each.

The deal was signed over the weekend during a meeting between a Defense Ministry delegation and the F-35 project administration in the American department of defense.

This is considered the continuation of a purchase agreement signed in 2010, when it was decided that 19 F-35 planes would be transferred to the Israel Defense Forces.

The Israel Air Force will receive a total of 33 F-35 planes. One of the acquisitions will serve as an experimental aircraft.

The first two planes are scheduled to land in Israel in about a year and a half, by the end of 2016. The rest of the aircraft are expected to arrive by 2021.

The defense establishment and the air force are interested in purchasing additional aircrafts to eventually form two stealth fighter squadrons, each comprising 25 planes.

The ministerial committee for defense equipment last November approved the acquisition deal for the 14 planes. The defense ministry believes that rest of the acquisition will be purchased in the coming years, subject to the ministerial committee's approval.

The defense ministry announced in its statement Monday that the total deal stands at $2.82 billion dollar and includes the acquisition of simulators, training and maintenance. The deal requires Israeli weapons to be integrated into the aircraft, in addition to the F-35 wings developed by the Aerospace Industry and the pilot helmets developed by Elbit.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de.../12/israel-eyes-exclusive-dibs-f-35/72014016/

To convince Israel and its supporters in Congress that the White House truly “has its back” with respect to threats posed by Iran, US President Barack Obama and top Cabinet officials have repeatedly flagged the fact that Israel is the exclusive regional recipient of the F-35, America’s premier stealth strike fighter.

“Indeed, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to which the United States has sold this fifth-generation aircraft,” Obama wrote in a letter last month to Rep. Jerold Nadler, a New York democrat representing the largest Jewish district in the country.

Some military and political leaders in Israel are pushing to make that regional exclusivity permanent.

Earlier this month, seeking to sway support in Congress for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry used nearly identical language as Obama.

In a Sept. 2 letter to lawmakers, Kerry cited F-35s to Israel as a key manifestation of the administration’s commitment to preserve Israel’s so-called qualitative military edge (QME) against regional foes.

“Israel’s first F-35 aircraft will be delivered in 2016, making it the only country in the region with a US fifth-generation fighter aircraft,” Kerry wrote.

And at an Israeli Independence Day celebration last May, Vice President Joe Biden told hundreds gathered at the Israeli Embassy in Washington to thunderous applause: “Next year, we’ll deliver to Israel the F-35, our finest, making Israel the only country in the Middle East with a fifth-generation aircraft. No other.”

Now, as pressure mounts on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to jettison his battle with the White House and accept the president’s offer to fortify Israel’s QME well into the future, experts here and in Washington are urging him to put Obama to the test.

Beyond billions of dollars in additional grant aid and a menu of military modernization needs, experts here said Netanyahu should squeeze out definitive assurances that Israel will remain the exclusive regional operator of the F-35 for years to come.

How long?

“Forever,” quipped retired Maj. Gen. Amos Gilad, the Israeli Defense Ministry’s longtime director of policy and political-military affairs who leads QME-related talks with the Pentagon and State Department.

Good thing they scotched this deal back in 2010.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of not understanding that paragraph. My reading of it was that Clinton believes that American leadership and involvement in the world is both necessary and ultimately for the better. The world is one of rivals that must be managed - on the whole her approach, as with seemingly most things, pragmatic. One may not agree with that view, however, but I'd say it's illustrated throughout the article.

I tried to avoid small excerpts like that point about Kagan, given it's part of a much wider article and balanced later with points like her adoption of Holbrooke's position on Afghan diplomacy and being "a far cry from Kaganeque" despite being more so than her boss.

Her position on Israel seems like the same pandering that for whatever reason all US politicians seem to think that they need to preserve this bizarre relationship.

I don't think it will dispel with any notion that she's much more hawkish, on both the use and threat of use of force, than her opponent in this race. Because there's no doubt she is. Although, there's not enough out there to particular discern how exactly a Sanders administration would really interact with the world; would he, for instance, have to quite rapidly adapt to becoming comfortable with the authorization of US military force.

 

[Maledict]

I really don't see much positive movement for Hillary in New Hampshire. I think it's still going to be a 20 point blow out, and I don't think she'll get those South Carolina and Nevada.

I Think ultimately she'll win, but it's going to be a long slog that goes all the way to summer.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I really don't see much positive movement for Hillary in New Hampshire. I think it's still going to be a 20 point blow out, and I don't think she'll get those South Carolina and Nevada.

I Think ultimately she'll win, but it's going to be a long slog that goes all the way to summer.

NH is kind of a perfect storm to work against Hillary. Sanders is already heavily favored here as a matter of not only demographics but also being from neighboring Vermont. On top of that, his supporters are probably fired up to deliver a big win in NH after narrowly losing Iowa for reasons they perceive as being coin-flip related. They're keenly aware of the fact that a few votes really can make the difference. And to make matters worse, Hillary supporters are probably not that enthusiastic today because Hillary already won Iowa (albeit barely) and no one expects her to win NH or even come close, so I could see some people who were leaning Hillary just staying home, especially given some inclement weather across the state today.

Factor that all together and I expect Bernie to win on the upper end of what's expected. Probably something like 22-23 points.

 

[East Lake]

I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of not understanding that paragraph. My reading of it was that Clinton believes that American leadership and involvement in the world is both necessary and ultimately for the better. The world is one of rivals that must be managed - on the whole her approach, as with seemingly most things, pragmatic. One may not agree with that view, however, but I'd say it's illustrated throughout the article.

I tried to avoid small excerpts like that point about Kagan, given it's part of a much wider article and balanced later with points like her adoption of Holbrooke's position on Afghan diplomacy and being "a far cry from Kaganeque" despite being more so than her boss.

Her position on Israel seems like the same pandering that for whatever reason all US politicians seem to think that they need to preserve this bizarre relationship.

I don't think it will dispel with any notion that she's much more hawkish, on both the use and threat of use of force, than her opponent in this race. Because there's no doubt she is. Although, there's not enough out there to particular discern how exactly a Sanders administration would really interact with the world; would he, for instance, have to quite rapidly adapt to becoming comfortable with the authorization of US military force.

I'm not knocking you for linking the article btw. I don't find it particularly convincing but I like reading this stuff anyway for how it frames certain events. If you take the sections on Israel for example it ultimately seems shallow to me because whatever world view hillary allegedly has there's other powers in the mix there, like Lockheed Martin and whatever lobbying they might have done for the deal. Instead they'll quote some advisor on how she was forced to make such and such decision, and how she thought personally of it in sort of a narrow diplomatic sense. Her decision probably was pragmatic but since we don't actually know what happened it's hard to even know why she made it.

Thanks for the links benji

 

[danm999]

I dunno NH polling seems all over the place. Emerson, Monmouth and ARG suggest Sanders is leading by 10ish points, University of New Hampshire and Marist seem to say 20.

You'd think there'd be some stability there but a lot of these pollsters seem to have similar marks from 538 and were conducted in the same period.

I'm gonna be a chicken and split the difference and say I expect Sanders to win it by 15 or so points.

No clue what the fuck is going on over on the Republican side but if Kasich really comes in 2nd I will be thrilled.

 

[benjipwns]

Patrick Murray @PollsterPatrick
Hmm. Isn't that very close to the Canadian border? Did they photo ID the voters?

Millsfield, NH:
Cruz 9
Trump 3
Others —1 each

gasp

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I dunno NH polling seems all over the place. Emerson, Monmouth and ARG suggest Sanders is leading by 10ish points, University of New Hampshire and Marist seem to say 20.

You'd think there'd be some stability there but a lot of these pollsters seem to have similar marks from 538 and were conducted in the same period.

I'm gonna be a chicken and split the difference and say I expect Sanders to win it by 15 or so points.

No clue what the fuck is going on over on the Republican side but if Kasich really comes in 2nd I will be thrilled.

15 is certainly the safe bet here. That's probably the most likely outcome, but I can't help but feel like there's a lot of factors that work in Bernie's favor going into this. I really think the outcome in Iowa will push a lot of Bernie supporters to the polls, just as Hillary's 3rd place finish in Iowa seemed to propel her to victory in NH in '08.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So what time do they usually have enough votes counted to declare winners?

 

[Y2Kev]

So what time do they usually have enough votes counted to declare winners?

On the Dem side, about two months ago. I bet 10PM we know on the Rethuglican (LOL!!!) side.

 

[CCS]

What sort of time are we likely to get decent exit polls?

 

[PBY]

What sort of time are we likely to get decent exit polls?

This.


Also...Trump didn't win any of those early voting districts?

Trump pls, cant have this happen again.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

This.


Also...Trump didn't win any of those early voting districts?

Trump pls, cant have this happen again.

I wouldn't worry, those early voting districts are like 30 people.

 

[PBY]

I wouldn't worry, those early voting districts are like 30 people.

Im acutely aware of this... just have flashbacks to the live Iowa tally

 

[benjipwns]

Bill Bradley and Al Gore's first head-to-head NH debate: http://www.c-span.org/video/?153166-1/new-hampshire-democratic-town-meeting

Second question in and they're both throwing around wild HUGE numbers about their health care plans and this institute and that research says this. Bradley's is going to be $50-65 billion a year and totally paid for by the $1 trillion surplus so don't you worry old lady. SLAM! Gore shoots back that his costs $156 billion over ten years and $118 billion for drugs, and covers 90% of Americans through HMOs and 100% of children and is actually more realistic than Bradley's! BAM! Also, it's free too, because SURPLUS OVER THE NEXT DECADE! BOOM! He ignores some old man's question about the evil Republicans impeachment to say he's disappointed in Bill Clinton's behavior too! THWACK! He wants child diabetes cured! Bradley's on the ropes!

Bradley wants public financing and to get money out of elections! Gore wants public financing too AND McCain-Feingold AND he won't take any SuperPAC money AND he won't take ANY money over the legally allowed limit (lol wat) AND he has the lowest per person contributions of any candidate!

Bradley and McCain sign pledge not to use any "soft" money in their campaigns:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?154253-1/nightline-campaign-finance-reform
http://www.c-span.org/video/?154214-1/campaign-finance-reform

The next two Bradley/Gore debates, bonus campaign ads included:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?154254-1/democratic-presidential-town-hall-meeting
http://www.c-span.org/video/?154266-1/meet-press-democratic-candidates-debate

 

[Plinko]

I am curious to know who out of all the republicans left would actually be a decent president.

I think my order would be:

Trump > Jeb > Christie > Kasich > Carson >>>>>Rubio >>>>>>>>>>> Cruz

 

[benjipwns]

Since it was in the search results:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?123015-1/marketing-violence-children

Marketing Violence to Children
Witnesses testified about the depiction of violence in the media and how it affects children. Senators Hatch and Lieberman testified about their plans to offer legislation directing the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to investigate the marketing of movies, music, and video games to children. Other witnesses, often using clips from movies and other media, talked about the pervasiveness of media violence and its effects on children

And for fair and balanced.
First GOP debate, W. said lol, nope: http://www.c-span.org/video/?152925-1/new-hampshire-republican-primary-debate
EDIT: lol, six and a half minutes in, some woman starts yelling about nuclear weapons and making the military pay for bombers with bake sales not schools; they just kinda let her go on for a bit...because this is 1999 and this CNN presidential debate stuff is barely above public access programming.

"I'm a strong criticizer of this administration." - Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

W. didn't show up until like the fifth debate: http://www.c-span.org/video/?153955-1/republican-presidential-candidates-debate