Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/26/2020 in all areas

  1. No, it wasn't. If you actually read the reports from the republican-controlled senate intelliegence committee, you would know otherwise. There was significant coordination between the Trump campaign and russian intelligence officers, wikileaks, etc.. Manafort, Stone, Flynn, Papa, Cohen, Gates all doing shady shit. Yet you, a "centrist" look past all of that, look past the actual spy Butina who was rooted out, her NRA ties which are being linked to funneling money through the NRA to republicans, the 8 (R) congressmen who spent an emergency 4th of july in Moscow, the repeated softening of republican policy against russia, Trump kowtowing to Putin in Helsinki, and all you see is Hunter. Hunter is a red herring. He isn't running for office, and the republicans just released their report on his involvement and found no illegal activity and said it didn't influence US policy. Again, your choices are "do nothing" or "do something" to save the environment. One party wants to open everything up for oil drilling and fracking, another wants to help curb CO2 emissions. Is it alarmism? Perhaps...only time will tell, but ultimately it is beneficial to the planet, so why not at least go in that general direction and have a good debate on how drastically we should commit? Again you are focusing on the most extreme of the party. Sure there are some randos claiming open borders, but they are not center of mass for the party and no one is actually trying to make that happen despite what fox news tells you. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a politician to say border security isn't vitally important to the US, particularly in post 9/11. You can't have a discussion about what are reasonable legal immigration levels, paths to citizenship for illegal aliens, amnesty policy, etc. without the right screaming "deport them all". It's not realistic, it makes for good sound bytes but ultimately it's a waste of everyone's time. There is little discussion on actual policy, and I'm sure the debates will be much of the same. Biden will discuss policy which is generally boring to the average american...trump will make some quippy soundbytes, drop a bunch of chaff about obama spying on him, insult Biden's wife and the crowd will hoot and holler. That's basically 2016 debates in a nutshell. I don't disagree and Citizens United has done more to undermine our democracy than anything we will see in our lifetime. That being said no system will ever be perfect and void of exploitation by a populace. Our current system is heavily exploited by the rich, and the democrats have worked to pass some (not a ton) of legislation to help care for the poorest of the populace. Healthcare is one of them. The republicans really screwed the pooch, and if they had lived up to their promises to repeal and replace the ACA with something more workable they would easily sweep democrats this election by beating them at their own game. Instead they just broke the system, threw a party and walked away. I've seen more republicans turn democrat over the US healthcare punching them in the face than anything else, and it's going to continue happening. It's easy to overlook things that never affect you personally, but when you have children dieing of cancer and families going broke to help keep them alive, it really shows how terrible our system is. What are you referring to specifically? The BLM/Police brutality issue? Is fighting for racial equality off the rails?
    4 points
  2. More than the guy who just straight up grabs them by the pussy? Yes.
    3 points
  3. All of the Russia collusion accusations have been proven multiple times to be completely false. Hunter Biden has more Russian ties than anyone from the Republican Party. The Republican party absolutely has a terrible environmental policy these days, especially for those that embrace a Teddy Roosevelt style of conservationism. However, the Democrats provide zero legitimate alternative. The entire Dem environmental "policy" is based on climate alarmism and the Green New Deal, which is wealth distribution and socialism disguised as an environmentally friendly policy. Spend some time in California and you'll realize that Democrat policy has no actual environmental concern. Pot meet kettle. Where is the link to the speech of Bill Clinton talking about the utmost importance of border security? Current Republicans are fiscally terrible, that is true for sure. But both parties are completely controlled by the ultra rich. Look who the major donors and influencers of the Democratic party are. Subtly encouraging violence in this country and playing racial politics vs actually pushing a legitimate agenda isn't off the rails? None of this was a defense of the Republican party btw. But acting as if the Democrats somehow hold some sort of moral high ground is laughable. Honestly both parties are beyond broken.
    3 points
  4. Political compass inop... Yes the Democrats have shifted left, which is what progressives do, and the conservatives traditionally resist change in favor for a more cautious approach. It wasn't until recently the republican platform turned into "undo everything and return it to 1950s america, except the taxes". The republican party used to be respectable. You used to hate the Russians more than the Democrats, you loved the environment so much you created the EPA to protect parks, hunting grounds and our natural resources, you could have a realistic conversation about illegal immigration, background checks, or healthcare...you didn't bend over backwards for the rich and actually tried to balance the budget and be fiscally responsible. Your party is off the rails to the point where you don't even have a stated party platform other than "not obama, and whatever comes out of the orange man's mouth". To think the Republican party shifted left just goes to show how little you have been paying attention to politics during that time. I mean seriously show me a republican platform from the last 30 years that is further right than the current administration. I'm interested to see your well-thought out points.
    3 points
  5. The one bad thing about telework though is it creates the insidious problem of always being available to work, or at least that becomes the expectation. At least I know, and for others who have had iphones/blackberries, there comes this expectation that you are always available and always reading your email. This could turn out bad if its not steered the right direction.
    2 points
  6. Literally all of it was. Your point in each of the paragraphs was either republicans are better or at least no worse than democrats. False centrism is a pretty standard tactic.
    2 points
  7. I believe the feeling is mutual on the other side. So the question becomes: How do we bring politics back to something approximating the center in this country? I’m not sure as many political issues seem nearly insurmountable at present. Term limits and campaign finance reform would be a start, but those issues are a third rail for career politicians with too much to loose. I think the fact that you make the distinction between political actors and normal everyday folk is an important step that many, many keyboard warriors should consider.
    2 points
  8. We are on the right track here... Will flyers get more pay for having to play musical chairs with public workstations that have so many user profiles that they crash under the lightest workloads?
    2 points
  9. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Uh, no, that's not racism, that's data. There is data that says if you grow up black in the US you are more likely to have a relative in prison. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) There is data that says if you grow up white in the US you are more likely to live in a suburb. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) It might be uncomfortable data, but its out there. Honestly, I don't follow you. I understand there are differences among races as far as the data goes. That is well documented, and I agree. My point to you was to say that your view which ascribed a characteristic to an individual based on membership in a group (or to the group as a whole) is the fundamental, operational characteristic of racism - not that there aren't observable differences between the races. Differences between the races will likely always exist - it doesn't mean there are actual biological reasons for those differences. Coming at this problem from the standpoint of biology is awful, and it will never result in lasting solutions for our society. While we're talking about data, there is also data that says police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent encounter with blacks than they are whites. From the Wapo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/). Why are offices far more likely to be killed by a minority than they are a white person? "There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black." "From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896 offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over the 33-year period was on par with the 10-year period: 52 percent were white, and 41 percent were black." In my worldview, this boils down to a cultural issues. There are legitimate historical reasons for it (racism), but that is from historical social forces, not actual racial disparities between different ethnic groups. That is my point. The differences that we observe which we are happy to pin on race are really due to deeper, underlying factors such as culture, etc. That, however, is a much more difficult conversation to have, and our society isn't exactly behaving in a mature, adult manner of late. Looking to those facts above, officers are vastly more likely to be involved in a deadly encounter with blacks than they are with whites - does that mean black people are inherently more violent? No - that is racist. What it indicates is that there are systemic issues within the black community that result in a grossly disproportionate number of violent encounters with police. It is convenient to pin it on race, but that's not going to solve any problem, because the problem isn't because they are black. What has changed since the enlightenment is we know for a fact now that humans are incapable of reason because of cognitive bias. In fact, the very term cognitive bias is defined as humans making irrational actions because of unconscious perceptions. Realize, there are over 100 forms of cognitive bias, and they are well documented. You probably talk about a dozen of them every time you do a CRM class. Recency bias? You're more likely to treat the most recent SIF you read as more important than one from the 90s. Authority Bias - You are more likely to trust someone if they are credentialed in the field they are speaking, even if their data seems illogical. Halo Effect - You are more likely to assume a "good ing dude" is immune to mistakes in the cockpit. Status quo bias: assuming the enlightenment is the epitome of philosophical thought because that's the way it has been for the last 300 years etc... This is also the major flaw with game theory as well, which presumes a game player always makes rational decisions to effect winning outcomes. People aren't rational, even when they think they are. I am always perplexed by arguments that proceed like this. We are "incapable of reason" except for the reason that lets me to conclude that humans are incapable of reason. Whaaa? Any argument that starts off with "we're incapable of reason, so therefore X, Y, and Z" has some inherent problems. I don't want to hammer this too hard, because there are different ways you could have phrased it, but to me, it does highlight one of the major themes that is going on in our culture - which is to say "there is no objective truth," which has one purpose: to empower certain groups or individuals over others. I'm aware of and know there is such a thing as bias. It's the new hotness. And this thing called unconscious bias, I'm aware of that too. I actually took an "inherent" bias test related to fat/thin (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html). Of course it indicated that I'm biased towards thin. The problem is that I am completely aware of my "inherent" bias towards thin people and against fat people. Fat people take up way to much of my airline seat, too much of my air, and too much of my pricey healthcare. Americans are too fat, and I am biased against fat Americans, but I already knew this. This is more appropriately called preference. Humans have preferences. In fact, I think a strong anthropological argument could be made that says these "biases" are the only reason there are still races. I feel like we have had enough generations all living together at this point that if there weren't preferences, we would all be the same shade at this point. I say all this, but I also don't want to disavow the importance of understanding one's own biases, because it is valuable. Humans are capable of reason, and knowing what your biases are, allows you to modify your behavior appropriately in order to counter those biases. In fact, if people weren't capable of reason, what use would it be to understand one's biases? I can't think of a reason (since I'm not capable of it). The bottom line is that I am deeply suspicious of any post-modern logic that discounts the very notion of "Truth", all the while purporting to have some sort of received wisdom/knowledge which is basically unsubstantiated. 99% of people on this forum give plenty of Eucks? about this. There are whole threads dedicated to leadership not taking care of people. How do you think people are taken care of if not through empathy/sympathy. You want to lambast the AF for poor leadership, but literally every book on leadership out there says you need empathy/sympathy for your charges. Are you really telling me, as a commander, you wouldn't have sympathy/empathy for any of your people if they lost a spouse/child/loved one? I don't think you mean that but how else do you describe that if not sympathy/empathy? I put "Eucks" to avoid the post being blocked (I think they used to be, maybe not anymore). In any case, empathy and sympathy are important for leaders. My point, which I did a poor job of making, is that we now live in a culture that seeks to put empathy and sympathy in front of fact, reason, and logic. Empathy and sympathy are all good, I got no issue. My issue is when we just go soft on people and issues because we don't want to address actual problems cranium-on.
    2 points
  10. Trump will "allow" for the peaceful transition of power... That is out right funny considering members of the democrat party are openly calling for violence and mayhem before, during and after the election. Along with all of the other temper tantrum tactics like impeachment, stacking the SCOTUS, adding States, mail in voting shenanigans, false narratives when it comes to race relations, etc. And the defund the police bullshit coming from democrats in democrat run cities is part of the plan too. Let's make sure the police departments are in a really bad spot when it comes to dealing with democrats "burning it all down" when Trump runs the tables on November 3rd. At least Bloomberg isn't out there violating election laws by paying off criminal's fees in Florida so they can vote. Oh wait. Yes he is... And the alternative??? Biden? That dude is the literal architect of the 1994 crime bill. He sniffs and rubs up on women and children. His son is a train wreck who made millions off of the very countries that Democrats accuse Trump of being in bed with. I used to be a middle of the road guy when it comes to politics. I have always just wanted left alone. I am a simple Texan. But this is fast becoming right vs wrong IRT policies and politics. I would so much rather have the loud mouthed New Yorker who gets shit done and protects the country instead of someone in the Democrat party who has been in DC for almost 50 fucking years. The republicans don't owe the democrats shit when it comes to a SCOTUS pick after the Kavanaugh debacle. Trump is the President and there is a republican senate. There will be a 3rd Trump SCOTUS justice.
    2 points
  11. Hey man, I’m not going to sit here and say that Trump is a saint. But you can’t sit there and criticize the morality of Trump while claiming Biden is a “decent man.” Most intelligent Trump supporters would never try to convince you that Trump is some kind of saint, but in a government where most politicians are scumbags, we will take his policies which even his most ardent opponents would agree have been beneficial for the country.
    1 point
  12. Do you respect him constantly sniffing women and making racist remarks?
    1 point
  13. A lot of people here should probably watch this and do some self-reflection. https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224
    1 point
  14. When the Democratic Vp nominee Harris proclaims that the riots should continue, then I think we have our answer on which party represents the rioters and looters best.
    1 point
  15. Trim the fat. This covid debacle has shown me who’s job can be easily cut. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
    1 point
  16. 1 point
  17. Crossbreed SuperTuck at 4:00.
    1 point
  18. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits-idUSKCN26F3L3 Obviously theater as it would require an amendment to really implement this and the current POTUS would veto it. However, the concept doesn't even seem that well thought out. Would voters be aware that when they elect a President they are also electing to Surpreme Court Selects? It would completely change elections because it would swing voters to vote for judges instead who would have a much longer appointment than POTUS. How is it Congress can get on board with term limits for other offices but can't get on board with term limits for their own political machines?
    1 point
  19. Alrighty then.... ****** MSG ENDS ****** Not to drop into the weeds on this idea but I'll just drop into the weeds... could the US / DoD build a family of systems (just thinking Air but applicable to Naval assets as well) to provide mass at a large discount compared to the frontline systems now and coming online? A US built long range fighter / interceptor for $30-40 million per tail and FH cost under 7k? An arsenal platform under $75 mil per tail and not overly complicated and years behind schedule, etc... as examples. Mass to engage the enemy mass, mass to complicate the enemy's targeting problem and mass to stretch thin the defense of the enemy. That is just my off the cuff concept of why we would look to this, which leads in my mind to an inexpensive (relatively) long range manned and unmanned platform team primarily for the China / Taiwan type fight but applicable elsewhere.
    1 point
  20. Will teleworkers get more BAH to offset the cost of having to maintain a larger residence that includes space for a home office (extra bedroom/den above what they may have been comfortable living in, plus office furniture, and increased utility bills)?
    1 point
  21. So dorky, but Crenshaw might be the savior of the party, so why not?
    1 point
  22. I understand your perspective, and I think it is valid. Perhaps the “perfect” leader would be Trump’s production combined with Obama’s emotional intelligence/communication ability ( I know that’s very simplistic). I do not like how Trump communicates or even does some things, but I place a lot of importance on what his administration produces. While I prefer him to not suck so bad at comm and significantly lacking in emotional intelligence, he produces a lot and in the end, those results are worth far more than a leader who talks a good game and makes me feel good, but doesn’t do shit to help _____ / fucks ____ up wholesale.
    1 point
  23. GA really is a top notch community. Mostly. Gonna have your grumps, but people are just good in general I've found.
    1 point
  24. The above, x1000... The below, not so much. To be clear, the bold part of your argument there is actual racism (not the fake news racism ala current political and social discourse, but actual, genuine racism). You are ascribing differences to people based on their external, immutable characteristics - whether positive or negative, that is racism. Your bit about the enlightenment is also off target. It's more important now than at any time in the past 70-80 years probably. The idea that individuals had worth and rights was transformative for humanity as a whole, not just the (Western) culture that enacted it. Since large parts of the world are yet to be "enlightened," it is ever relevant. And if you are suggesting there are enlightenment ideas that are "wrong" which ones? The supremacy of fact, reason, and logic? What don't we know yet, IYO? Finally, thanks for the pedantic lesson on the differences between empathy and sympathy, though I'm sure most of the fighter pilots on this board still give precisely 0 Eucks about either. This discussion has brought forth the central conflict occurring in our culture right now: facts vs feelings. I think you're on the side of feelings.
    1 point
  25. If you are going to make me do PME by correspondence, then give me time to actually do it instead of telling me to do it in my off time. With actual time and if you do it right you could even make it more beneficial for people that put some effort into studying and through possibly networking. As something to do in my spare time I want to put as little effort into it as possible, and get little out of it.
    1 point
  26. Agreed.... something online that can be a pre-requisite for attending in-residence when we get back to normal. Like 2007-2017.
    1 point
  27. If only there was an online program that covered the learning objectives of SOS in a distance learning type environment...
    1 point
  28. Welcome back to the GA world, I started back up last year and have been having a blast, while making lots of new friends. Was driving home from the rents today and stopped by an airport because I saw a Stearman inside an open hangar. Wandered up to the hangar to say hey and walked away with a bunch of ideas for my Stearman (plus their offer to help), and a planned 3-ship Stearman outing next weekend. As I was leaving I ran into a retired UAL Captain I know, so we took his Cub up and bounced around the local grass fields. Great people that just love aviation. Did you say air conditioning? Little bit too much AC this day...hoodie wasn't quite enough!
    1 point
  29. They will be disappointed in the results
    1 point
  30. Went to ASBC, it was fine until the Academy grads showed up.
    1 point
  31. LOL. Delusional liberal with conspiracy theories. Did MSDNC told you this?
    -1 points
  32. Lol, you cited CNN but you get mad at other people who cite Fox.👍
    -1 points
  33. Lol, you site ABC, dailymail, and politifact and get mad at other people who site Fox. 👎
    -1 points
  34. You keep at it guys! Trump is proud of you. Deny anything and everything that even comes close to making sense because it doesn't fit your narrative. Also, you guys keep saying Democrats are encouraging violence. This is confusing to me. What exactly are you stretching to evince this? This is coming from the party with the President quoting "looting and shooting", telling people at his rallies to beat the opposition, etc. The President! That checks... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    -2 points
×
×
  • Create New...