Leaderboard

all votes are equal..... within their state. States are not given equal representation nationally, they are represented according to population. "The will of the people" is not as simple as you are making it sound because the United States is, well, states that decided to unite. Why should the entire center of the country be marginalized because CA & NY share similar values? What you are talking about is restructuring the foundational philosophy of this country. If you are going to do something that big, it should be via constitutional amendment. Think carefully about an end-run around the correct process: it means the majority of a state can vote one way and the EC can disregard the will of those people in favor of the people's will in other states. That is the definition of institutionalized disenfranchisement, a historic fomenter of civil war.

IMO, any talk about disenfranchisement because the popular vote was opposite the EC vote is pointless. Yes, the losing side is upset and understandably, but they have to acknowledge the facts. This election outcome was a direct result of the campaign plan and execution by both candidates. The Donald and his team campaigned to win the EC, NOT necessarily to win the popular vote. Campaigning to win the popular vote would have looked very different. And likely would have resulted in a significantly different number of voters turning out to vote since they would know their vote would count in hard left states like CA and NY.

Direct democracy is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid with how they structured the Constitution. I would argue we should go back to electing Senators by state legislatures. With 32 states under Republican control, you can see how that would change the national Senate's composition today. And this isn't just because I'd like to see more Republican senators (I think both parties are hopelessly lost) but I think it would give the states a greater voice in Washington as was originally intended. Senators would then be accountable to the state legislature, and states could even choose to recall Senators if they become too entrenched and loyal to Washington instead of who put them there. This would also help to decrease the effect of densely populated urban areas in Senate representation, which was another reason for indirect election in the first place. The founders believed the Senate was the higher house, and wanted to trust choosing those who serve there to state legislators who could/should have greater discernment in who they chose. The framers were much smarter than I, and I believe if our state reps were electing our Senators, people might care a little more about those elections closer to home. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ask her to buy you a car instead. It will show that you are an alpha male and call the shots.

I bought a convertible as a Lt waiting to start UPT. After UPT, I sold the convertible to buy a wedding ring for my fiance. 5 years down the road we got divorced and now I have neither a wife nor a convertible. I miss that car.

Not a pilot, never will be a pilot, just a humble A&P that fixes the jets you hope to fly one day. Stop worrying about your girl and cars. When you get to UPT just worry about getting through to breakfast, then lunch, then dinner in that order. Old joke; How do make God laugh? Tell him your plans. Spent 23 years on active duty and never got an assignment that was even on my dream sheet if they even have those things anymore. If you are at Vance or Shepard I would get a used car you would not mind driving that has hail damage and is going to get some more hail damage. I.E. a 2004 Saturn Lemon.

This is the correct answer.

Which is a datapoint to the ridiculousness of our evaluation system. We don't just rate the guy a shitbag, but instead we use cute "continue to challenge" or "upgrade when ready" language, or leave off the SOS push.

that's because he's a dick.

The pilot of that Luscombe was my good friend. I'd known him 19 years and had flown that Luscombe with him. We took a T-38 to Oshkosh a few years back. Aviation... all facets... was his passion. You always hear about guys that will do anything for you; guys that are always the bright spot in your day; guys with an eternally optimistic attitude. Spanky really was that guy. He was an amazing pilot. And an even better father and person. He always cared about his fellow man. After being a T-38 FAIP, a tour in the B-52, and a staff tour, Spanky applied for the SR-71 in 1997: they were hiring one... only one... pilot that year, from the hundreds of applicants. Spanky beat out everyone and was hired. He showed up at Edwards to start training, but four days later, Pres Clinton killed the SR program. Three days later, Spanky is at Beale to fly the U-2 interview flights. Five days later, he is hired to the U-2 Program and has to get a SecAF waiver for two PCS' in 2 weeks. He became my neighbor on base. When I first met him, I knew he was about 35, but he looked barely 21. I gave him his T-38 checkride on 23 Dec 1997. Friends ever since. He was the deployed U-2 squadron commander in Saudi before the war kicked off in 2003. I replaced him at the end of his tour. He elected not to go the professional pilot route after retirement, but was always super active in GA, EAA, and teaching his kids about aviation. The fact that Tim perished too is just crushing. So very tragic. He was loved by all that ever met him. God bless you, Spanky.

"You'll always lose money chasing women. But you'll never lose women chasing money" -My mom

THIS. But if anyone is looking for a participation trophy, I think a nice trial run would be giving Clinton control of (1) every state north of Penn., (2) every state on the west coast except for California (geographically about even), and Chicago... The trial will last 8 years and everyone's a winner!

This is exactly what happens now. Republican voters in CA, NY, and IL are not heard since all of their electoral votes go blue and it most likely depresses their turnout. With a national popular vote or proportional EC, every Republican vote in CA would actually count - so would every Dem vote in Alabama. Speaking of Alabama, which is a reliably red state and voted 62% for Trump, let's see how it stacks up on federal give-and-take: The Federal Government provides roughly $60 billion annually to AL (includes the same grants, services, and direct payments as your total for CA) and direct federal funds account for 36% of AL's state revenue (about $8 billion). And AL contributes only $19 billion back to the feds. While the dollar totals for CA are greater, it is also the most populous state in the union and it takes roughly the same as it gives. Look, I'm not trying to defend anything about CA - I've never lived there, never want to. My point is that we can look at these numbers for every state and find blue states that give more than they take and red states that take more than they give. And they all rely on federal money in their budgets no matter how much they like to bash the feds. This is a good point and highlights the role of states' right in the presidential election and EC - thanks for adding it to the discussion. I would counter that the 17th amendment was a clear move toward direct democracy, by instituting statewide direct election of senators. Wouldn't the next step on that path be direct election of the only federal office? And isn't "all votes are equal" a worthy goal? But where would that leave consent from the states? That's why I think keeping the EC and changing it to a proportional distribution of electors would maintain the state/fed mix while minimizing the chance of a disconnect between the EC and national popular vote results. I agree - changes to letter and spirit of the Constitution require an amendment. To be clear, I am not personally advocating for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But it is certainly relevant to this discussion. My personal preference would be to keep the EC but award each states electors as percentages of the state's popular vote, rather than winner-take-all or apportioned by congressional district since we all know those are gerrymandered to hell nationwide. Absolutely it would change the way presidential campaigns are planned and executed. And I absolutely agree that voters in every state would be energized to participate, even in hard right and left states, because they will have an actual impact. That only happens in IL. We're proud that our cemeteries have the highest turnout in the nation.

I may be alone here, but I actually think a depressed voter turnout is not necessarily a bad thing. Have you met most people? I don't want the typical ill-informed American citizen voting. If they're too lazy/preoccupied to educate themselves on issues and current events, then they don't need to be casting votes. Let the people who actually pay attention have more of a say. If others choose to disenfranchise themselves, then I say let them be.

"Monitor for command" is a great one... So is "vectoring towards sqd cc" Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Get a Jeep...

Sorry, but I don't even want to hear talk of a popular vote until we raise the abysmal voter turnout way higher. Also, what happens if the popular vote reveals that all those people in California and New York who didn't vote were all Republicans? Maybe they didn't vote because they know their state/county is going to go blue anyways. Obviously that's a long shot, but are we going to keep flipping which vote is more important based on who decides to b1tch loudest at the time? The popular vote seems more like mob rule than "will of the people" right now.

It's a car. Take a best guess about what you think is needed. If you PCS somewhere and it's not the right vehicle, trade it in and get something else.

Make her buy her own car. But really, what if you end up with an overseas assignment? Are you willing to pay to ship the second car overseas? I'd run that car into the ground until 1) You're married 2) You make it through UPT and 3) You know where you'll be going.

Thoughts? You're way ahead of yourself on several fronts. Don't buy her a car until you're married.

New year, same problem... https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/31/breaking-cartel-gunmen-fire-border-patrol-agent-arizona/ Build the walls, fences, security systems, expand CBP/ICE, deploy the Guard (Army/Air) permanently to secure the large open areas not physically blocked. If it takes a lot of money, so be it, if it keeps a POS like this guy out: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mexican-man-charged-rape-19-deportations-removals-44472938 It's worth it.

Since you have a habit of talking about things you're not knowledgeable on, I'll do you the favor and correct you on this one as well. I see you're trying to justify the votes your girl got in this state, but I can tell you as a resident that no cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texan placed a vote for her and I challenge you to back up that claim with facts. If you look at the popular vote in Texas, the only blue counties are mainly those along the Mexican border and can be attributed to the large illegal population that resides there. The rest was overwhelmingly Trump. Texas was a conservative Democratic stronghold for many years. For approximately 100 years from after Reconstruction until the 1990s, the Democrats dominated Texas politics. Now Republicans control all statewide Texas offices, to include the governor and both houses of the state legislature, and have a majority in the Texas congressional delegation. This makes Texas one of the most Republican states in the U.S. Urban areas like Dallas, Austin, Houston and San Antonio are still largely Democrats; but suburbs of these cities remain heavily Republican. So your claim that "cowboy hat-wearing, truck-driving Texans" voted for Hillary are pure fantasy. It's the typical liberal and welfare-recipient votes that supported her in many other states.

Please check with your WSO before posting.

When I took the AFOQT at the Academy, they made us come in on a Saturday, told us our scores wouldn't influence our AFSC selections, and as soon as we were done we could carry on with the rest of our weekend. So you can guess how much effort I put in to that test. Just get a study guide and rock it.

Hello everyone I've got a new website up that is an alternative to guardreservejobs. It's goes out and searches all the reserve/guard units webpages and gets the jobs directly from there so to save all of us the cumbersome task of going to each website individually. Give it a look! Any feedback would be awesome and you can find my email on the contact page of the website. https://afpilotjobs.com/

Chiming back in after a couple years. I got selected at age 31. So if you are wondering, it is possible if you are determined to make it happen!

I prefer to think of the SEALs as "The 319th of the Ground" rather than the other way around

Why do they have us flying the WORST airplane imaginable? ?? I should've just gotten my ppl on my own! Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

You, my friend, are a gentleman and scholar. I've been fortunate enough to score my slot already but this is a great service to the community. My one recommendation to update your script is if you change the "posted" date for the boards to the actual application deadline or at least include that in the homepage table. (That's more importanter info, my 2c)

Drive that lemon into the ground. Tell her to start saving so she can buy a replacement cash. Paying interest is for chumps.

One quick fix I'd like to see goes like this: Say you live in a state that has 55 electoral votes, but only 44% of the eligible electorate turns out, well you get 44% of 55 electoral votes counted. Live in a state that doesn't give an F about voting or what's going on, or one that is so lopsided lots of voters don't turn out? Cool. You just get a proportionally moderated voice in the national election.

Be careful what you wish for - CA has the 6th largest economy in the world and contributes >$300 billion a year to the federal coffers (11%), which we all benefit from. 2008 and 2012 were not exactly close elections with Obama getting 7.2% and 3.9% victory margins, respectively, in the popular vote and hefty EC victories. No disagreement between popular and EC votes, which is the expected outcome and has been true for all but 5 of 58 presidential elections. So why spend political capital messing with it? But when a candidate wins the popular vote by a 2.1% margin and handily loses the EC, don't you think that disconnect disenfranchises voters and subverts the "will of the people"? I'm not disputing the outcome of the election - Trump won fair and square according to the Constitutional rules, period. But that wasn't who a plurality of our nation voted for. I would be making the same argument if the tables were turned. Of course voting trends, opinions, the number of states, and political parties themselves change over time. Democrats are disenfranchised by the EC right now. That could easily swing the other way but the key point is that VOTERS are disenfranchised over the long term. I did not wake up on November 9 and decide the EC was bad - I just had more substantiation for that opinion. My assertion that "all votes are not equal" is demonstrably true. See previous comment and outcome of 5 previous elections over the last 200 years. Yes, there are 51 separate elections in 50 states and DC, but the assignment of electors is based on House seats (population) plus 2 (for 2 senators per state) and they are winner-take-all except 2 states. Since the presidency is a NATIONAL office decided by a NATIONAL election, shouldn't the NATIONAL vote decide the outcome? I would also argue that the national popular vote would make our election process more resilient and prevent targeted tampering/influencing from swaying the overall outcome - something that I think will see more of in the future. An end-run around a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC is already underway: 10 states and DC have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would allow each state to award their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote, rather than the state's individual popular vote. I'm not sure I agree with that arrangement - it would make more sense to assign state electors based on the state's vote distribution rather than winner-take-all.