Bernie: Two Democrats cannot torpedo a bill supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

[Donkees]

Dec 17, 2021

You can disagree. You can fight for your ideas. But when we have zero support from Republicans, two Democrats cannot torpedo a bill supported overwhelmingly by the American people. I do not respect that kind of arrogance.

[ColinC]

1. "hold my beer."

-Manchin and Sinema

[stopdiggin]

2. pretty much. (only you said it better) -(nt)-

[lame54]

19. It's been upgraded to Courvoisier

[radius777]

34. If we played hardball politics with them,

they'd be holding our beer.

Everyone has skeletons in the closet - send operatives to their state and keep digging until you find something. Put the squeeze on them and show them who's boss.

And the residents of their states do support BBB as polls show. WV is 'deep red' only on social issues but is historically a populist New Deal state. AZ is trending purple with many younger working class Latinos.

Manchinema are playing to donors not voters and it's time to call their BS out.

[relayerbob]

3. Yeah that'll help

[Nixie]

8. Exactly. And adding "arrogant" in there is rather...

interesting, all things considered.

[ColinC]

9. Yeah that isn't helpful. They aren't arrogant. They are just

Appropriating the situation in the
senate. I really think they are
satisfying their roles in such an
exceedingly difficult
situation.

[Nixie]

13. Very possible as they are from red states and play to those

voters who don’t worship Bernie.

[ColinC]

14. It's ridiculous anybody expects democrats

That Democrats campaigned for, fundraised for and who promised to support a Democratic agenda -should actually support a democratic bill.

[Phoenix61]

4. Except, sadly, they can. nt

[BlueTsunami2018]

5. Other than the fact that they can, he's right.

It only takes one asshole to sabotage everything.

[msongs]

6. cancel the f 35 as an offset to bbb expense nt

[leftstreet]

11. Heresy!

+1

[ColinC]

12. Why would we do that?

I mean... It could ALMOST fly!

[EX500rider]

17. These countries buying it seem to think otherwise

United Kingdom
Italy
Netherlands
Australia
Canada
Denmark
Belgium
Japan
Poland
South Korea

I wonder if you know something about the plane they don't or the more likely they know something about the plane you don't

[ColinC]

22. If they don't they will figure it out rather eventually, I'm sure.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/taskandpurpose.com/news/f35-joint-strike-fighter-deficiencies-2020/%3famp

[EX500rider]

27. Except they have all had planes delivered and have not cancelled future deliveries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_operators
So they like them and want more.

[ColinC]

28. I'm not saying it won't be too late.

But if our own engineers can figure it out, so can they. It has hundreds of flaws with no plans for fixing.

[EX500rider]

30. Again, I am guessing current operators of the plane ...

...know more about it's capabilities then internet articles written to produce clicks.

[ColinC]

32. Agreed. And those operators

... have pointed out the hundreds of flaws in which the contracting companies refuse to acknowledge exist.

[EX500rider]

33. And yet keep buying them

So I assume they believe the "flaws" to minor. Or they would cancel their orders and buy something else.

[ColinC]

36. The Ford pinto sold millions. It is the standard for state of the art transportation, right?

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2021/07/16/the-number-of-major-f-35-flaws-is-shrinking-but-the-pentagon-is-keeping-details-of-the-problems-under-wraps/#:~:text=A%20technical%20problem%20involving%20the,after%20flight%20testing%20the%20fix.

Consumers -especially if they are foreign governments, are not going to be privy to each classified technical issue in an ongoing project. Not sure it makes sense that just because somebody buys something, they know that they are buying something of quality and is functional.

Hundreds of supposedly minor flaws. As of July 7 major flaws (as far as we know)

[EX500rider]

38. Yes, the Pinto was state of the art in 1967 when it was designed. nt

[ColinC]

40. First off, it was built in 1970. Rushed into production and immediatey

Was called out as being of mediocre quality and at least one major flaw. But hey they sold a lot, so it must be a good car.

[EX500rider]

43. Built and designed are two different things.

Initial planning for the Pinto began in the summer of 1967.

[ColinC]

44. Exactly. When it was built it was a horrible POS

Whose engineers and developers likely knew were the case -just like what we are seeing with the f35. But if our only standard of excellence is whether it sold a lot, then the pinto was one of the best vehicles ever produced.

[EX500rider]

18. And what, keep flying 50 year old designs?

That worked out so well in WWII with the Brewster Buffalo, obsolete by WWII

[ColinC]

24. Your realize you can build something better without burning billions

In the process, right? There is definitely some middle ground where the f35 represents a money pit of horrible proportions.

[EX500rider]

25. For less costs? Unlikey

5th Gen networked stealthy super cruising jets will be $100 million+ no matter who builds them.

Latest models of the F-18 are in the $70 million range, design originally dating back to the 1970's.

Comparing aircraft costs is always problematic. The process by which a fighter is acquired can significantly affect the final price, and Canada would buy the Super Hornet under a government-to-government foreign military sale, which can inflate the cost by as much as 30 per cent. But a multi-year procurement for the Block III in the U.S. president’s budget for fiscal 2020 projected a cost of about US$66 million per aircraft, and estimates in the past two years have suggested a price of US$70 million.

[ColinC]

26. The goal is impractical in itself

Sacrificing enormous resources at the cost of the welfare for millions of people for it, is demented.

[EX500rider]

29. A modern plane is "impractical"? So just fly bi-planes then?

Both China & Russia are working on and flying prototypes of 5th Gen planes.
The USAF would be suicidal not to.

[ColinC]

31. Lol "modern plane"

A modern plane is one that can carry people from one place to another for purposes of long distance commuting.


We are discussing an apolocalyptic death machine with hundreds of flaws and dwindling chances of repair in the costs of almost the entire last stimulus bill.

[EX500rider]

35. No, that is a modern passenger jet, we are discussing modern fighter jets.

"apolocalyptic death machine" Really, a fighter plane? Seems unlikely to cause a apocalypse,
maybe you are thinking of ICBM's, or bombers or nuclear missile subs.

[ColinC]

37. You obviously didn't grow up in Iraq

Or any other community that has been directly effected by the collateral damage caused fr these "modern planes".

[EX500rider]

39. So the US should just forget about air superiority and just rely on the kindness of China & Russia?

I am sure that would work out well.

[ColinC]

41. Or you know, build something else.

The f35 may eventually be redeemed after throwing almost 2 trillion into the project. But starting over with something else may have been far more cost efficient.

[EX500rider]

42. Unlikely to be any cheaper.

Stealthy, networked, supercruise, V/STOL capable, aircraft carrier capable etc will not be cheap. You'd end up where we are at but at 2x the $

[ColinC]

46. Not likely. The F22 is functionally far better a plane than the f35

It's total development costs were a fraction of the f35s, estimated at less than a hundred billion. Or around a 20th of the cost of the f 35.

The developers knew the f35 had major design flaws from the beginning, but instead of scrapping and starting over, they threw more money in it. Nearly 1.5 trillion dollars later, those major design flaws are almost gone. (Only 7 left!)

[EX500rider]

47. The F-22 was over a 200 million a copy, the 35 is closing in on 110 ea.

And the F-22 was not produced in the 3 variants that we need, F-35A for the USAF, B- S/VTOL for the Marines and C model with tail hook and beefed up suspension and anti-corrosive for Navy. Making the Raptor do all that would have been as much.

And making a separate plane for each of those needs would be 3x's as much.

[ColinC]

48. The f35 is like those knock off iphones you could buy out of china

Yeah, it's cheaper.... But don't expect it to do much of anything that the OG could pull off.

If you type in "most advanced jet in the world" into Google, you don't get the f35.

The F22 is the top result. Made at a fraction of the cost of an inferior f35 with a deservingly much higher price tag.

[EX500rider]

49. I'd go by pilot reviews

April 29, 2019: As more F-35 stealth fighters enter service their database of effective tactics and operating techniques is rapidly expanding. One thing the F-35 does extremely well is use automated flight controls that allow the pilot to carry out maneuvers that would require a lot more experience in older (F-15. Su-30) aircraft but are much easier for an F-35 pilot. The more experienced pilots know a lot more useful maneuvers than new pilots but because of the adaptive F-35 flight control software, it is much easier for new pilots to master an unfamiliar maneuver. The best way to explain this is the experience of British carrier pilots who formerly flew Harrier vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and were now using the F-35B (the vertical takeoff and landing version). The British pilots say difficult carrier landings that could be terrifying in a Harrier (which U.S. Marine Corps pilots also used on small carriers) were surprisingly easy with an F-35B. As British pilots began carrying out landings on the new British carrier they were pleasantly surprised. The F-35B flight control automatically adapted to all the rapidly changing wind and carrier movement variables and allowed you to land without a lot of stress. Handling the F-35B, in general, was much easier, and safer, than the Harrier. Hovering, for example, required a lot of continuous effort and attention from a Harrier pilot. In the F-35B the pilot could fly the aircraft to a position and hover and the aircraft would remain where it was flown to without additional effort by the pilots no matter how much the weather changed.

All this ease of flying enables F-35 pilots to concentrate on something that does still require a lot of decision making by the pilot; stealth management and threat management. The stealth characteristics of the F-35 make it more difficult for radar to detect it. How the pilots fly in a combat zone can improve the effectiveness of stealth. That is done by learning to manage the flood of “threat management” data that F-35 pilots have access to. By being able to concentrate on stealth and threat management F-35 pilots achieve what has been the key element in air combat since 1914; getting in the first shot. In effect, “stealth” and the resulting surprise was always the key to victory. The F-35 was designed with that in mind. The radar stealth and maneuverability isn’t as good as the F-22, but the F-35 “situational awareness” is much better. Pilots who have flown the F-22 and F-35 always note that and point out that, in the hands of an experienced pilot, it makes the F-35 a more effective aircraft than the older and more expensive F-22.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/20190429.aspx

[ColinC]

50. Anecdotal evidence is great and all. But if I were purchasing my personal apocalyptic death machine

I would wager on the one not mired in mechanical issues.




https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html

[Hortensis]

7. Unfortunately, it's not 2 but 52 versus 48. At least. Other Democratic

senators also want to limit some provisions of the bill, and they're reportedly especially appreciative to Manchin, whose voters lean overall moderately conservative, for acting as a placid lightning rod for the incoming from people who angrily deny WVans' right to representation of their majority views.

As for SENATOR Sanders, he knows perfectly well that members of the senate are designed to be powerfully independent in order to serve the people and interests of their semi-autonomous states. Not the president, not the nation, not an ideology. Their own state. That's their job. No one else can or will fulfill this duty to those who elect them.

[ColinC]

10. It wasn't the best idea when the constitution was written

And it is a far worse idea now. That is, unless we prefer a loose union of states over a united country.

[Hortensis]

15. Really? The alternative was 13 and ultimately 50 or ? separate nations.

Do you really think having a poor little nation overrun by drug cartels on your state's southern border and a stronger nation taking all the water from rivers flowing into your state on the north would be "better"?

How about mandatory conscription of all adults into your state's military to guard incursions into your borders, especially by the religious state to your west that has about the same respect for your freedoms and rights to make your own choices as some here have for others?

The former colonies all had their own interests and cultures and wanted to be proudly independent nations. They united mostly to create military security against European colonizers and a common currency for trade. Basically forced to, or they would not have. As it is, they insisted the Constitution as reserve as many of the domestic powers of independent nations to the states as would work.

[ColinC]

16. Getting rid of states entirely as we knelw it

Would have likely been helpful in avoiding a lot of the similar issues that arose over the years -including but not limited to, a civil war.

My statement you are responding to is certainly in agreement with you. But I would go as far to say abolish the senate, and maybe states entirely. We ended up as only slightly more than a loose union of states which was a small upgrade from the articles of confederation. But the current structure is still putting a lot at risk.

[Hortensis]

20. :) Nice fancy. Mine's getting rid of gravity. I really think

that'd be a lot more helpful than problematic once we adapted to it.

I guess I shouldn't joke about what I once again have to realize is becoming shockingly and imminently possible. Of course, if the RW did take over and establish an authoritarian state and eliminate citizen sovereignty, either immediate or gradual consolidation of all power in a central government would almost certainly happen. No dictator would allow the diffusion of power to state governments.

They're already openly planning to completely reinterpret the constitution. The states most determined on states rights have always, of course, been conservative, but the way the right is pulling together in this scary era that might just disappear, seemingly in a day, so that blue states were the only ones fighting centralized oppression.

I'm often wishing these days that we were still in California. Deep breath. Grab a doughnut.

[UCmeNdc]

21. K&R

[MineralMan]

23. Uh, Bernie...They Can Do Exactly That.

Pay attention.

[budkin]

45. They can actually

And that’s how fucked up our system is.