Leaderboard

Keep talking about things that if you really were in those jobs you wouldn’t be talking about them. Tell us more!

Yes. Because that protects smaller states from getting railroaded by larger, more populated states. It's the whole point behind having the Senate at all. More emphasis should be put on states providing for their citizens (both in terms of services, and taxation to pay for those services). Want more social services? Move to NY or California. Want something else? There's probably a state that will suit you. Otherwise, what's the point of having states? Or state governments? The issue is that we've allowed political parties to become too powerful, and allowed them to drive political discourse, rather than states and local representatives.

Here's the latest Barring any catastrophes we should see the CC release on Monday and an official release on the 15th! Happy Friday folks

In the AF there is a culture of pretending a SGT of any sorts is superior to an officer under the rank of O-6, and if they are an E-8/9 then maybe even more authority than an O-6. It’s perpetuated across career fields and weak officers let it happen. They even support it by telling young officers they need to shut up and listen to the Sgts. I’m sure you have already noticed, that compared to the Navy and USMC, authority is non existent in the Air Force below the wing commander level. A piece of paper stamped by an A1C holds more merit than the command authority granted to most “commanders.” The need for a squadron commander to ask “mother may I” through the group and wing CC, and in some cases to a star (like covid ETPs), is absurd.

So much disagree with this post... I wish more people would read the Federalist Papers and the reasoning and logic behind what the framers built in the Constitution. They had a longer view of government based on history and study of the great philosophers like Locke, Plato and Socrates. They understood the extremes and challenges as presented by Machiavelli. They were great thinkers and did not resolve every concept to a 30 second sound bite. One thing is certain, the framers in an attempt to build a "more perfect union" wanted their to be debate, discussion, consensus. They did not want rapid change or Crazy Ivan's that reacted to public opinion. Time as a function of legislation served to let tempers cool and logic persist. The filibuster serves that purpose along with many others. Going to a simply majority in the name of timely legislation is a gross misunderstanding of what our system is supposed to be. Again, SLOW change, build on logic and consensus. That was the intent of America.

I used to have a civilian job before I decided one day to apply for an OTS pilot slot. I don’t know your background, but to those here that have only known the Air Force as a job in their adult lives (or a kush airline pilot gig afterwards that was enabled by your AF job), I would caution that the civilian world isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. In fact, it can be unimaginable doldrums where entire years run together into the same memory, and then you die. Even a non-flying AF job has more excitement than 99% of the jobs out there. It’s like an Air Force staff job, except that the things you’re doing are not important whatsoever. Maybe at staff you’re just a cog in the military machine (“Why am I working on Afghanistan stuff, we shouldn’t even be there. Balancing this stupid $690m budget”) but as an average civilian you’re more like a cog on a worn out typewriter that has already been donated to Goodwill and no one’s told you. You’re certainly not doing stuff that kids would be interested in during career day. Plus the constant financial stress of things like a recession, COVID, and company underperformance that has nothing to do with you. Some kind of Neutron Jack comes in and deletes entire divisions overnight, college grads first. Civilian workers are cast offs and liabilities that take money directly from their bosses wallets. Your Air Force boss might be an asshole, but not like that. All I’m saying is the grass ain’t greener, and I wouldn’t stop any of my kids from joining the military. Well maybe except the Army.

Congrats to all who got an interview. I got an interview with their last board ~2 years ago, back when my application was much worse than it is now. I’m really curious what kind of scores/hours you need now. If anybody who got an interview would be willing to post their application details it’d be greatly appreciated.

Wow, we caught a bunch of unsupported throw away contractors out in the open rolling in tactical column with an AC-130 overhead... Go look at the denied area capes in the 130J, it’s an absolute analogy at our wholesale investment in 99 cents of every dollar to fight the coin fight while pretending we are ready to take on the other peers out there. No you are right in that Russia doesn’t want a conflict that will solidify China as the global super power that didn’t piss it all away when it’s over, but for the love of Christ can we as a nation stop viewing Russia through the same 1990s Vodka swilling “Da Comrade” tropes and understand they actually can hurt us. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But we all spent 14 days in Q-town quarantine, so we should all be good to go, right? Or were we just wasting our lives sitting in that mold infested, shithole?

What if, in my example, the citizens of south Dakota doesn't want their backyard to be used for nuclear waste storage? Or to have consideration (funding) for maintaining the site? What if they have concerns about safety, or believe the waste site hurts their economy? Since they're taking waste from other states, should they get extra funding as a "thank you" to fund initiatives for their citizens? In a direct democracy, their voice could be effectively silenced by the majority a thousand miles away, and that majority wouldn't even have to debate any of the concerns-just up straight skip to the vote because the votes would be there. National policy (set by executive branch) is one thing. States are free to do their own thing. Of course, the federal government (executive) can encourage cooperation through slowing funding. But if other states are concerned about individual states doing things that affect them, it needs to be more than just policy. It needs to be law. And since multiple states could be affected, it should be handled at the federal level. So in your second example, I'd agree with you. Though the issue you point out has implications outside the state. Pollution affects others, and energy resources are critical to national security, not to mention our economy. So it makes sense to have laws and policy at the national level. We also do it for other things we value as a nation-look at our national parks program and federally protected wildlife areas, or our airspace. Another good example is minimum wage. There's a federal standard, but some states have set a higher minimum wage, and some counties or cities even above that. As long as the state or local governments don't break federal laws, they can make it more restrictive. If someone believes in raising the minimum wage, they should be lobbying at all levels. And the local level would likely be the most responsive, as we see with minimum wage. I agree with that smart, nationalized decisions can be good. But we are a very (physically) large and diverse nation, so things that work in the New York may not work in Oklahoma or Oregon or. This makes it challenging to take a one size fits all approach, because that leaves a lot of people unhappy. Putting power in states lets power reside much closer to the local area, and be more responsive for the residents.

Because Trump said they were terrorists, so Biden has to say they are not.

Nothing really gets stone walled-Texas can enact whatever programs it wants for Texans pretty much on its own if it was important enough to them. And Texas has the resources to do so if it wanted to. States don't have to wait for federal funding or laws, especially the bigger states whose economies rival other nations. For example, if universal healthcare was so important to Californians, they could implement it without federal funding. It would likely raise their state taxes, but there's nothing federally that bans them from implementing it. If it's a good idea, other states will do so, and maybe eventually other states will get on board and vote at the national level. And California has done things like that in the past (like for car emissions standards). Smaller states will have trouble doing things unilaterally; they likely have a much smaller economy, so it's harder to implement government programs if they want to; they have to lobby for outside help from other states. Without the Senate, big states can screw over small states, as well as the people within those states. For example, federal funding for programs (from federal taxes levied on individuals and businesses) could be diverted from small states into big states, and the small states would have no recourse due to their small population. Or big states could decide "nuclear power is great, let's do it, but where should we put the waste?" and vote to put it in say South Dakota, because SD wouldn't have enough representatives to block that vote. You do see this issue within states as well, with the conflict between urban centers and rural areas. So the even dividing down to states isn't perfect. But it helps protect minorities (not just race/ethnicity in this context, but rural vs urban, big vs small businesses, industrialization vs environmentalism, etc) within the population. Otherwise, democracies (both direct and representative) can devolve into mob rule or a significant consolidation of power once a majority realizes it can vote for things that only benefits then.

100% agree on that. I had a privileged upbringing but I was 1 generation away from abject poverty on both my parents sides. Without the Air Force, I wouldn’t have had anywhere close to the opportunities I had because my dad took advantage of the programs to earn a commission, become a pilot, retire as an O-5, and go fly for the airlines. His dad dropped out in middle school and worked the line in a meat packing plant until he died at 60. If he and his brothers don’t join the AF, they’re more lower class working stiffs (nothing at all wrong with that) with much less opportunities. I always encourage military service of someone doesn’t know what to do for the benefits, reliable pay, and skills you can transfer. Join as a personnelist, do a 4 year tour, then go to college with some money in your pocket. Don’t join the infantry if that’s not your style.

It’s like people forget that we’re a Republic.

Because it’s basically just the flu.

The hard part about fighting Russia (or China for that matter) is that we assume they will fight is the way we like to fight. Our strength comes from tactical prowess, with a heavy emphasis on technologically advanced weapons. But those are expensive, and highly skilled tactical units are expensive to train and retain, meaning we can afford fewer units. This means we can be in fewer places at once, and any loss will have a disproportionately bigger impact. Sure, maybe the Russians don't have the best equipment, or the best tactical level units. But like Lawman said, operationally, they are very responsive. So they are playing to their strengths. Plus their investment in EW and Cyber seems to be paying dividends at their operational and strategic levels of fighting. So they seem to be able to achieve effects in Syria for much less cost than what we're investing. It seems like a lesson we are too stubborn or proud to learn since WW2: our enemy may not fight the way we fight, or think the way we think, and we have to adjust our strategy to counter their way of fighting/thinking.

I flew MQ-9s and killed people. I saw an entire spectrum of reactions. Some people handle it without issue, some people break down crying in the debrief, some people go home and drink too much, one dude passed out when it was time to shoot. You never know what you're going to get from someone until it happens. The people who approached the task of killing as just another job to excel at seemed to have the least problems. That's the approach I took and would recommend. It is not a job for the squeamish. I saw heads and limbs blown off, injured dudes flopping around trailing their guts behind them and shit like that. What the view looks like from other planes I can't tell you.

"Quantity has its own quality"

My student yesterday would probably attest that even in upt 2.5, stress is plentiful and raging helmet fires are still very normal, though I’m not sure if he’s landed yet, considering how far behind the plane he was.

👋 @Homestar I am not beyond my military flying days. Living the life in the airline world now and doing a CAP reserve job to get through my final 3.5 years! This brings back memories!

Like I said, we can agree to disagree. I would 100% vote to enact a compromise closer to direct democracy with ranked choice voting. Just saying “we’re a republic” doesn’t actually address a single argument made.

Credit bureaus are a tough nut to crack. Their customer isn't you as the individual, but lenders. Their business is telling lenders how risky lending to you is, and their formula doing so it's the core of their recommendations. Sure, you should have visibility to make sure facts are correct (accounts, addresses, etc). But the formula that spits out your credit score is proprietary to the credit bureau, and it's what keeps them in business (providing good recommendations to lenders). So there's no way to have transparency without destroying the business. You don't *have* to have a credit score to get a loan; there's no real requirement for a lender to check, though it's likely in the lender's financial interests to do so. The problem with the government getting in the credit reporting business is then the government gets deep in the lending business (has that worked out well for government backed education loans?), especially if commercial credit bureaus are eliminated or forced to use a certain formula. What happens when a lender uses a government backed credit score, and an individual defaults on the loan? Is the government responsible for backing part or all of the loan because it endorsed the individual (through issuing a credit score), especially if the government score differs significantly from a commercial credit score? Or if the government formula ignores certain indicators based on fairness/equality, lenders may choose to increase interest rates across the board (to avoid perceptions of unfairness) to cover loans that may default.

Given the governments record with transparency, especially the past 12 years, I would 100% disagree with you.

Military skews conservative, and conservatives seem to skew towards being skeptical of the rapid vaccine development. I'd bet more of the military (and dependents) declining the vaccine is along the lines of "don't be the first to volunteer" and taking a wait and see approach. Plus there's say least some level of distrust of the military and vaccines (early 2000's anthrax shots, gulf war syndrome), which probably also contributes to the wait and see approach. Military also tends to run younger, and may feel since they are young they can just power through if they get sick, and the evidence so far seems to favor that (barring underlying conditions). I'm sure many of us felt pretty invincible in our twenties. So I wouldn't say they are anti-vaxxers, but cautious (maybe overly so) regarding a new vaccine using new methodologies. I'd wager there'd be less concern if the vaccine was a more traditional dead virus vaccine.

Same reason it’s not decimating the homeless population in US. I wish we could have civil discussions about this but unfortunately civil discussion has broken down in our society.

The irony is for the amount of black people you’ve talked to who support your viewpoint, I have 7 (yes I’ve counted when I thought about it) black friends who do not share your viewpoint (and 3 of them came to this country on a raft as a child...so no, they’re not from a “privileged” family). They are along the thought process espoused earlier in this thread that historical treatment and past laws have been terrible/discriminatory, and there are absolutely things to address and make better today, but there is not a systemic, nation-wide, far-reaching (or whatever other adjective you want to use) problem of racism. It is real and they want it gone, but it is so wildly blown out of proportion when attached to words like “systemic” and the focus of those who are well intentioned is significantly misguided. So consider this, or just throw it away because it’s counter to the narrative, but I hope you guys don’t, because it’s certainly a perspective that needs to be considered so we can move forward in the most positive direction, without being misguided so strongly by bullshit spewed by the media and politicians.

Here's what I'll do: instead of verifying @AW91 and waiting until I see proof, I'll let the anxiety ruin my weekend. Then on Monday if the results don't come out, I'll just say to myself that of course they didn't and I wasn't worried about them coming out on Monday in the first place of course.

<200 F22's...and the Russians got us beat at quantity.

No offense to all... But I like this one better hahaha. @AW91, what's the sauce bro?

I'll give my 2 cents as someone who believes themselves to be a devout Christian and a recent off-the-street UPT select who's never killed anyone and won't be flying a combat mission, but did interview for a platform that could go kinetic and thus I had to be ready to take life before throwing my hat in the ring. I'll go light on the scripture and keep this relatively agnostic from a faith standpoint as I know you didn't specify your faith, but if you ever want to chat on more nuanced aspects of this topic (religion, philosophy, etc.), please feel free to PM me any time. I've given this one a lot of thought and it's good that you're doing so, too. So here's my perspective--and again--as nothing more than a civilian UPT select who's never been in combat, most likely never will be, and is nothing close to an expert or tough guy: I'm an avid shooter, and, once I'm in a CHL/CCL-friendly state soon, I'll be carrying my Glock 17 with me basically everywhere...and especially in church, as odd that may seem. So, whether I'm in church, a grocery store, a movie theater--whatever--if, heaven-forbid, I'm pushed to the point where my only option left is to engage a threat with my pistol, at that point, morally, I'm feeling pretty free and clear. Similar to how many of us were raised with our parents saying, "You don't start fights, but you have our permission to finish them," that's how I feel about engaging a threat with my concealed hand gun (or weapons at home during a home invasion, for instance). At some point, you're forced with the decision to take a righteous stand to protect life or to allow evil to prevail in that given situation, potentially letting it take the lives of others, even that of you and your family's. The latter is wholly unacceptable to me in every way possible, and I see no conflict with that philosophy and what I read in scripture. For me, if I may be so bold, it would be the same in combat. This may not be apples to apples, but, IMHO, it's close enough: If you're put in a position today at CostCo where you're armed and you see a bad guy indiscriminately shooting innocent people, do you believe that your religious faith prevents you from taking that shooter's life in order to save others, even your own and your family's? If so, I respect where you land--I have true pacifists in my family who share the same faith as I do, who have served honorably, and who have ultimately come to own different convictions than my own. But if that's not you--if you see no issue with taking life in such a scenario--then let me lay out a bit more insight into all of this: First, from my relatively limited understanding, you're not dropping any ordnance without a good amount of teamwork to confirm the target and to get approval to be cleared to fire. You'll have a knowledgeable and often highly experienced team of professionals around you all contributing to getting this right. You won't be going at this alone, and your teammates almost assuredly won't want to take any more life than they have to either...and when they do, they'll want to get it right just as much as you do. To me, that counts for a lot. Second, if you are in a position in a fighter to take life, odds are you're hitting a target who is either actively engaged in harming Americans (or innocent civilians), or they are planning to do so in some capacity. For me, if there are American lives (or other innocent lives) to protect, I want to be the guy doing it--I can't think of a more fulfilling or noble task than that of stepping up to the plate--even putting yourself in harms way--to support troops on the ground or to protect innocent civilians. Those kind of kills are the kind that--again, if I may be so bold--I don't believe I'd struggle a whole lot with. Having a few really close relationships to folks who have taken lives (and are still involved in doing so in the active duty Air Force and the Air National Guard), what they've told me is that they've yet to have a kill they wrestled with morally...but that it's actually the shots that they couldn't take or couldn't make (for whatever reason; if you ever read "American Sniper" by Chris Kyle, i believe he shared very similar sentiment) that still eat at them. Imagine having troops in contact and you can't get there in time before more casualties are taken or lives are lost...or, somehow, you drop on the wrong location. How do you think you'll handle that? How do you think you'll handle seeing/knowing that something horrific is happening to civilians on the ground, you're armed, nearby, and mentally ready to take action, but--for whatever reason--you are not cleared to intervene and stop that atrocity from happening? What if you see footage of that atrocity the next day on the news or shared on another message board somewhere, and now that's with you forever? I say all of that to say this: While I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to think about these things--just help as best as I can with my limited experience--situations like those above along with fratricide were the things that were a lot more prevalently on my mind, and that I gave even more thought to before submitting my applications. I hope that's helpful--my apologies for the novel this evolved into--and best of luck to you.

I'll be excited to read what the AF wanted it to say! 😁

Having worked on the hill and seen how the sausage is made, more often than not there is a lot of back room negotiating that takes place during a filibuster. i want that debate...I want it to be painful and slow to make large course corrections.

You are correct.

Because all the term filibuster means is a floor vote to end discussion on an issue is required to end debate. You no longer have to read the cook book. Instead, you just vote not to end debate, and then senate tables the discussion and moves on to the next agenda item. Yes, reading a dictionary does ocassionally, rarely happen. But those efforts only amount to delaying legislation for a day or so. When people want to end the filibuster what they are really discussing is ending the senate house rule on requiring a vote to end discussion before bringing an item to vote. This effectively changes the # of votes required to pass legislation from 60 to 51. What your advocating would effectively limit the strength of moderate caucuses in a 2 party system which would allow either party to just slam through controversial legislation without bipartisan support. All this would do is serve to further divide our country by destroying the moderate middle. It's great while your party is in power, but when it's not, youre utterly boned. https://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/18089312/myths-about-the-filibuster

We can agree to disagree. Personally, I believe that our current form of government is most definitely not optimal and should be updated. Many of you will say that is not the case. Some of you will say that’s not the case because it was designed this way from the beginning. Malarkey. I have read the federalist and anti federalist papers, and I’m not convinced they have as much foresight as you think. I personally believe that - hot take - the founding fathers couldn’t actually predict everything that would happen in a complex modern society. And I believe their glorification is actually counterproductive to discussions about how to change things to work better in a society that no longer resembles 1770s New England. I mean, the original government of the US only had to represent the ideals of a couple million homogenous white American males who all lived in the same place and did the same thing for a living. It’s more akin to the governance of Delaware, New Hampshire, or Vermont than a multicultural, 4000 mile wide nation with vastly varying interests, beliefs, and economic factors. And we are feeling the cultural issues with non-homogeneity and have been ever since our country expanded. A few obvious mistakes: the original constitution still enabled the oppression and non-representation of women and slaves. The founding fathers knew that a two party system would be a terrible thing for government, yet they couldn’t do anything or have any foresight to stop its formation. Additionally, I must say that our government since the early 1900s has taken sharp turns away from the original founding with both formal laws and amendments and informal changes, whether it comes to how/how many electors are appointed, how senators are chosen, tactics to stonewall legitimate legislation and appointment of officials, or powers of the executive/legislative branch. “We the people” used to mean a lot more when they had proportional representation, yet it was casually changed just so it was easier to deal with. And my point is that the changes that have led to the current American government are not necessarily a good thing. You could call me pro-reform. Pragmatically, we don’t stand a chance of uniting and making valid national change to strategy without a new boogeyman. The World Wars and Cold War were the only thing that brought Americans together over the last century, and without them, we resort to infighting. For many Republicans, their only policy is that they want to “own the libs.” Beyond that, they’re stumped. Many Democrats just want to expel “fascist Republicans” and sing Kumbayah. And now we on this forum are fighting about whether or not it is a valid tactic to read a cookbook for 16 hours because the majority of people don’t agree with your point. YGBSM. Maybe the actual governmental system is f*cked if people have to do that as a “balance of power.”

Ungrateful peasants!

I agree

If that’s what you gathered from that video and his body of work as the CMSAF, then you have serious problem.

Blah blah blah. Repeal the 17th amendment. Popular vote of senators is dumb.

There are systemic issues holding the black community back. However most of them are driven by the same party that says “if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black.” Look at the dominant political party in each city that had massive unrest this summer. Democrat policy has by and large owned the black vote by developing social programs that keep the black community dependent on government assistance. Most of this “assistance” is then paired to the narrative of the hopeless black man still being held down by the American legacy of slavery. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy that has engrained itself into black culture and is self defeating. And the “solutions” coming forward on this are just more of the same. ViperMan mentioned the death spiral of these communities. Corey Booker wants to implement “baby bonds” where every child born in America gets a $1,000 savings account with money added to it each year until they turn 18, with the the poorest families getting the most money deposited (up to $2,000 I believe). Anyone with a brain sees that a policy like this merely encourages further poverty and govt dependence. Why would you work to improve your standing in life if your kids can get nearly $40,000 handed to them by remaining in poverty. The proposal for this program also specifically mentions aiding those in minority communities, so it’s no doubt who this vote getting scheme is meant to target. The death spiral continues... Republicans do share the blame in that none of them have the stones to actually address this issue, probably for fear of being called racist, so instead they sit silently on the sidelines and try and pretend the problem doesn’t exist. All that being said, this whole narrative of a racist fabric within America that holds minorities and blacks back or a racist army of cops executing black men in the street is such a freaking cop out. It’s a convenient distraction for a political party that shares a large part of the blame for the plight of African Americans in this country yet counts on their vote every 2 and 4 years. Unfortunately it’s seemed to work. There are real solutions to this but they take actual hard work and will also likely take decades to see results. If we want to see something succeed it will take people that recognize that the very real problem of decades of mistreatment and discrimination of blacks was not helped by a policy of government dependence that has actually pushed the community into further despair.

Bias and racism are not synonyms. If you are a police officer and the overwhelming balance of interactions you have with criminals are of a certain skin color, as a human you are going to develop a bias. That does not make you racist. We know this because minority police are subject to the exact same bias. Remember how stupid we all thought it was when TSA was patting down elderly white women in wheelchairs? This is a problem to be solved, but any solution is immediately precluded by calling the participants evil, which racism very much is. I think well meaning liberals gravitate towards this narrative because it is a much easier solution. With racism, you just go after the racists. People and policy, find and destroy. But the real solution is probably going to involve the breakdown of the black family unit, and the incarceration of young black men for decades. Nothing about that is going to be quick or easy. Or cheap. Affirmative action in colleges is another example of this phenomenon. The easy answer was to just twist the numbers to get more black people in college. But in many ways black people have paid the price of that ill-conceived solution. The real answer was always to fix black education at the elementary school level, and work up from there. But the results from that endeavor would not be seen for decades, whereas changing college admissions only takes four years to yield hypothetical results. Perception is not reality, but it guides how we act. The more we scream about systemic racism, despite the hard evidence, the more people will believe it. Just like election fraud. I find it almost amusing how each side sees the riots of the other side as inconceivable. I don't. I think the riots were unjustified and certainly immoral based on evidence, but I'm not surprised that they happened. a bunch of well-meaning citizens made the foolish mistake of taking what their politicians and media figures said as truth. What would you do if you legitimately believed that our democratic election process was being stolen from us? I hope that you would have your guns ready and march on the capitol. Likewise if you believed that the police were intentionally killing scores of black people without cause, based only on the fact that they were black, I would hope that you would take to the streets. I would.

Another stupid comment designed to make you feel better about your virtue. My station in life is completely unaffected by policing and black people. But I have an ethical interest in the matter. Misguided progressive policy, often based on gross misinterpretations of cause and effect, have a historical and frightening way of creating the problem they claim existed the whole time before failing to solve it. We all have an interest in preventing this.

There you go throwing your White Privilege around again...

You have to be the biggest condescending asshole on here dude. For fucks sake, please stop.

Lately, This thread is so much fun to read... Now, who wants to buy some rare tulips!? Better yet some tulip options (Jk).

Wordy article from Time admitting that Trump was right about the election. https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Infinitely more transparent than private credit bureaus, especially with FOIA requests. Or am I missing something?

Trans Woman Who Sued Salon Workers For Refusing To Wax Her Balls Loses Court Cases

I’ve had multiple airmen pull out money from their TSP to “invest” in dogecoin. I guess, on the bright side, they’ll get a taste of reality and losses early in life.