Leaderboard

I don't know man, I'm kinda hoping California just kinda falls off into the sea. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Dude, you're at quibbling level MAX here. I'm sitting here telling myself to shut up because hearing this from the token liberal member of the forums won't change your mind, but I just can't. This should not and cannot become a partisan issue. Russia, our chief state-actor geopolitical foe for the last 70+ years conducted a cyberattack against our country's democratic institutions and processes and we need to be unified in standing up and saying we're not going to take that lying down. Let's review the facts: The October 7th Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement was put out by, you guessed it, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. If the DNI's support seems to be what you're hung up on, go back and read that statement. The first sentence reads, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations." In support of that October 7th statement, additional analysis was released yesterday. In the second paragraph of the new Joint Analysis Report, it says, "This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security." This new JAR is a direct follow-up to the October 7th DHS/ODNI statement, meaning that both DHS and the ODNI support its conclusions, along with the entire rest of the intelligence community. It's almost like Homeland Security and the FBI are the relevant agencies to analyze an attack on the homeland and they were tasked by the ODNI to lead the analysis that backs up the ODNI's October statement... Let's be clear: there is only one primary incoming policymaker in particular who denies that the IC has reached a consensus or that Russia is behind the hacking...the President-Elect. His personal staffers and cabinet members are following the boss' lead. Look at a sampling of Congressional leaders from the President-Elect's own party for some contrast: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, “Any foreign breach of our cybersecurity measures is disturbing, and I strongly condemn any such efforts. The Russians are not our friends.” Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, “As I’ve said before, any foreign intervention in our elections is entirely unacceptable. And any intervention by Russia is especially problematic because, under President Putin, Russia has been an aggressor that consistently undermines American interests.” Senator John McCain, “We need to get to the bottom of this. There’s no doubt they [Russia] were interfering. There’s no doubt. The question is now, how much and what damage? And what should the United States of America do?” If you'd like a bipartisan statement, on December 11th, Senators McCain (R), Graham (R), Schumer (D) and Reed (D) said: "For years, foreign adversaries have directed cyberattacks at America’s physical, economic, and military infrastructure, while stealing our intellectual property. Now our democratic institutions have been targeted. Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American. This cannot become a partisan issue [emphasis mine]. The stakes are too high for our country. We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security." There's so much we can disagree on political and policy-wise in this country...let's not choose to completely disregard the facts and disagree about an attack by another hostile state upon our own.

If Democrats are so disenfranchised by the EC then how were they able to win in 2008 and 2012? Try researching the EC vote (i.e. state by state races) since the late 1700's--you'll see that states, elections, etc change with time, and likewise this 'advantage/disadvantage' you speak of. As you mentioned, Democrats do this to themselves because progressives love living close to other progressives--well, enjoy your progressive states like California, New York, Massachusetts, et, and likewise, enjoy Trump being president. Besides, I don't recall Democrats in 2009 trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment in Congress when they had large majorities... And with regards to your assertion that "all votes are not equal"...this is completely false. Since we have 51 individual state elections for president, all votes in each respective state (or district for Nebraska and Maine) is equal.

My decision to leave just keeps getting easier and easier. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good post. I'll have time for a longer reply later, but definitely don't shut up on the topic. I enjoy your posts and come here to have my opinions challenged, not for an echo chamber. Surely you realize that in our hyper partisan world, every event is politicized. How do you think republicans feel when Benghazi is discussed? Again, I'll send a better reply soon but for now suffice to say I like your posts, read them all, and enjoy your perspective.

1. Who speaks for the "intelligence community?" The ODNI. No one else, that's why it was created. So without the office charged with informing us of consensus on a topic, you cannot plausibly say the IC is in agreement on the topic. Magnetfreezers link indicated ODNI saw evidence of senior Russian involvement in hacking as late as Oct 2016, that's legitimately serious. I didn't see ODNI endorsement in nsplayers link, because it's not an IC report. 2. Starting at page 5, the report is generic advice on preventing future intrusions. Yes I saw the professionalism in the phishing email sent to Podesta; 17D, I certainly appreciate your professional opinion on their tradecraft. My point is that a report on an event which spends most of its pages not talking about the event..... seems like a weak ass report. Jaded, you may disagree with my assessment but considering the stakes involved with publicly confronting Russia I'd prefer my international accusations have more granularity. 3. "Do I have any idea how this stuff works?" As I said, without a parallel classified report containing actual evidence this report alone is unconvincing. Have you read that report with actual evidence? Or are you assuming it exists? Or are you convinced without seeing evidence? Regardless of your answers, this alone is not satisfactory to me. Gents, the IC Iraqi WMD reporting convinced decision makers on both sides of party lines. It was heavy on "trust us" and weak on why, resulting in a total fiasco for our country. This is what a loss of credibility looks like, and there have been additional major IC failures between 2003 and now. Maybe I should re-frame it: given recent spectacular IC assessment failures, why should I believe this one? You may disagree and you may even be right, but unless you use an argument other than "it's secret and you'll have to trust me but I'm right" you will remain unconvincing across the spectrum of viewpoints. And in fact, a large number of incoming policy makers seem unconvinced. This is a real problem because potential evidence would be secret because it would expose capabilities. I don't know how to resolve this impasse, but it's a real issue for our nation going forward. Other than "read SIPR" (which wouldn't help on this one, BTW), I'd love to read opinions on this quandary in our republic. How does the country learn to trust institutions that have burned us, while maintaining security required for them to function? Again, I'm glad that report was posted here and I appreciate the spirited discussions.

I've driven through just about every state minus the Great Lakes region and California is still the only state where I've gone through an inspection checkpoint to enter the state.

So all pay will be taxable...and no change in pay based on location I presume Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

US CERT posted the indicators (IPs, etc) in a CSV/XML file accompanying the report at https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

"In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing. This time, the spearphishing email tricked recipients into changing their passwords through a fake webmail domain hosted on APT28 operational infrastructure. Using the harvested credentials, APT28 was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members." Were the compromised folks up to date on their cyberawareness challenge? If so, they should turn their trophies in.

The second sentence is "However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities." You want details in an unclassified report? Do you have any idea how this stuff works? The CIA, the FBI, the "U.S. Intelligence Community," and the Department of Homeland security is all in agreement on something, and you consider that "weak ass"? What is wrong with you? Maybe you should spend some time on SIPR before you post here again.

nsplayr did a good job of articulating the benefits...the key one being workload. The second major advantage was a selling point for other versions of light attack and that was the ability to fly with a host nation aircrew member. If you go back and read our doctrine it actually says we don't want to be in all these small fights, we want to build partner capacity to fight the small fights in their own back yard before the turn into something more serious that requires our participation. The "reattack" on lite attack in the mid to late 2000's was based on the construct that we would fly the aircraft to country X, spend a period of time training them to fly and employ the aircraft, then our folks would fly home commercial and leave the aircraft for country X to fight with. Another huge benefit not related to one or two seats is cost to operate. The A-10, F-16/15E, B-1/52 and Gunships are all great airplanes but they are expensive to operate. Scorpion and other versions offer 80% capability at 1/4 the cost.

Looks like a Rorschach Test to me.

Maaaaan I knew there wasn't gonna be a bonus. Oh sure, eventually they'll drop something but forgive me if I was skeptical from the moment I saw this even as the rest of the career field is flipping out. I got nothing else to do so I'll take it but I doubt I'll be eligible now as I'm edging within a couple months of what the initial stated eligibility was. Hope you're able to enjoy it if you're sticking around though! zb

Illinois, my favorite electoral map this year, is a current Democratic stronghold. Let's play a couple guessing games: 1. Where is the city with some of the strictest gun laws located? 2. Where is the city with one of the highest gun-related murder rates in the US is located? HINT: One city is the answer to both questions - sometimes nicknamed "Chiraq" for it's warzone-like atmosphere.

Sooo, I got whisky and books. Guess my family has figured me out.

A bit dated but if we had listened to RAND in 2010 we would have a force for these marathon conflicts https://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/05/af-needs-coin-plane-rand/ We need it to deliver air power without breaking the bank, develop our allies and steer them to airplanes they can afford and not fly the 4/5 gen fighters into the boneyard prematurely Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice thread derail going on here. A 4-ship doing OCA works as a single unit with their radar assignments and what not. Same concept as a crew airplane, just spread to 4, single seat jets. And if you think you're some higher level thinker because you're a single seat guy, ride along in a family model Viper doing CAS or something. All that chatter going on the aux isn't discussing why Dez Bryant is a dumpster fire for a fantasy football team this year. It's the same conversation going on amongst a crew on an ICS about how to accomplish the mission. On that note, ask the original Weasels back in Vietnam if they would've rather unloaded the "noise maker" in favor of more gas. And those gibs literally mean Extra Weight Onboard (EWO).

Logic and reason supported by data to argue for a LAAR therefore this will be ignored... https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logistical-fratricide-the-cost-of-fast-jet-tacair-measured-in-purple-hearts/

I'd venture a guess that shedding CA would put the federal balance sheet more towards green, but that's completely unsubstantiated Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Right, nothing new just an alternative perspective. The problem with the state (or county) election maps is that they exaggerate the gap between right and left based on physical geography, and completely overlook the large portion of "purple" voters. The "dead smurf" map also shows how disadvantaged Democrats are by the Electoral College since they are concentrated in a few geographies. The bottom line is that not all votes are equal - it depends where you live. 2,900,000 votes >> 80,000 votes 80,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA >> 2,900,000 votes anywhere else The best strategy for the Democrats in 2020 would be offer relocation packages for CA residents to move to swing states. No need to sway anyone or win hearts and minds - just change where you vote. Anyway, the Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality would be happy we're having this discussion.