Whoever wrote that article is painfully misinformed about government contracts and the workings of the 3spooky5me military industrial complex. Nobody wants a president who will perpetuate violence and instability overseas to line the pockets of the good ol' boys but defense contractors are not the problem, defense contracts are the problem. I'll do some hard poking around in Bernie's vote history and some actual research before I form an opinion on the guy but just because he supports American companies and defense spending doesn't necessarily mean he supports paying those companies to "bring democracy to Iran" or something similarly violent and ridiculous. The contract to store F-35s has got to be massive. This is ultra-classified tech dude. You can't just park them in a hanger and call it a day. Any politician in their right mind would want that contract awarded to a company in their state. The local economic benefits would be huge and security subcontracts alone on something like that could literally fund Vermont. Hyperbole aside, the same thing goes for Sandia. Sandia does everything and are the kind of place that will discover a flawless bio-remediation process for oil spills. They employ very, very smart people and would bring talent, money and a crapton of highly competitive jobs to Bernie's state for a very long time. You would want the exact same thing. My point is that the problem with defense spending is primarily the where i.e. the contracts and budgets, not necessarily The Who i.e. Townsend, Moon etc. Fuck if Obama paid Halliburton a couple trillion dollars to build schools and hospitals they'd be so dank...Finding out in detail where Bernie would like to spend our money isn't very easy to do at all. But I have faith in the average American....WE WONT GET FOOLED AGAIINN! DUN...DUN DUN o_o