Lord Ratner

I do not consider anything surprising for the FBI at this point, but is there even the suggestion of evidence this happened? The most damning evidence against Trump in the Florida documents case is a secret recording of Trump admitting he knew they were classified and that he failed to declassify them... Recorded by Trump himself. Has anything suggested the use of secret devices in this case?

I'm not sure what the correct thread is for this, but Trump made it possible, so I'll put it here. SCOTUS just overturned Chevron. If it wasn't for Roe this would be the biggest news from the SCOTUS in a decade at least, and it's still the most consequential by a landslide. This is a massive win for small government, assuming there are no gotchas in the ruling. I haven't gotten to read it yet.

I'd vote for Kennedy if he was younger. He's a safe middle candidate who won't set the world on fire while we await quality candidates. But he's 70, so, no.

What's a stay behind device? Just a bug?

And you didn't? So Joe is honest, just tragically declining in his mental acuity? Just bad luck, that's all. Definitely not the idiot of Congress for 30 years who sent his son around the world to collect money from the people he's supposed to represent the US against. Just a poor old man. Unfortunate timing. They are two liars who treat the people around them like disposable garbage, neither more committed to the American people than they are to their own vanity, with kids who would be nobodies if not for their last names. At least Trump got his money and fame from the wallets of investors and corporate Toadies, while Biden took it from our tax dollars. You are exhibit A for why Trump is winning. Even in your disingenuous attempt to claim intellectual and moral superiority, you insist that these "unacceptable options" are still somehow different. For the millionth time, Trump is just the first one who looks on the outside the way they all act behind closed doors, including *everything* he's being taken to court for. Why vote for him? Because you'll get more conservative policy from the (R) abomination than from the (D) abomination. That's it. Obviously progressives prefer different policy, so choose the other shitbag. I'll be voting for no one this year. I'm done voting for dinosaurs from either party.

Depends on what you fly as a narrow body fo. If you're just flying pre-constructed trips out of PBS, from what I understand the quality of life is probably going to be better on the wide body side, even with the lowered ability to pick your days and trips. If you use the seniority on the narrow body to pick up broken stuff, either short or long-term turns (depending on your preference) or my specialty, one short flight out, overnight, one flight back, then you can have a pretty easy life. I will probably never go wide body because the idea of sitting in an airplane for 15 hours when I can fly from DFW to OKC and be done for the day just doesn't make it worth a few extra bucks per hour. For reference, I usually fly 320 to 350 hours per year, actual seat time. I probably deadhead another hundred to 150 (often in first class now thanks to the new contract), and get paid somewhere between 1,300 to 1,500 hours, plus the 401k.

That's great to hear. I want to either retire early or have my schedule controlled such that I can fly one or two turns a month and just ride the benefits. I'm on the other side of the equation and hired pretty early on in the wave, 2018. I could have been a captain at year three if not for covid, and now after 6 years I'm at about 12% of the first officers in my bid status. It is a truly phenomenal quality of life at that seniority level, and the reason why I haven't upgraded despite the 50% increase in Captain's pay over first officers pay. My retirement projection puts me in the top 100 if I stay towards mandatory retirement. Even so, at this point I doubt I will end up flying the wide bodies, and I'm not planning to upgrade for at least another 4 years. For everybody who have just recently joined, it takes a good 3 to 4 years to really understand the job and the many different ways to structure it. At American we have guys upgrading and flying as captains at their two-year anniversary, and the reality is that they took the upgrade well before they understood what was possible as a senior first officer. I wouldn't say they necessarily regret the decision to upgrade, but they sure do spend a lot of time complaining about the realities of being a very Junior Captain, and they are making less money than the senior first officers. Yes, it is possible that if you delay upgrading a Black swan event could crush the airlines again (it's going to happen eventually) and you will have missed the opportunity to upgrade. But being the bottom bitch in any bid status, especially during a downturn, can be a lot worse. I know guys who would have much rather been furloughed than sit for 5 years commuting to sit reserve. Just make sure you talk to some of the more senior first officers about why they haven't upgraded before you make the jump.

Your entire argument is based on hyperbole and unsupported "principals." Really your philosophy sounds more like a social leach. Exist in a system that puts obligations and expectations on the populace then try to exist in a "principled" manner (where you conveniently have no such obligation) that would immolate the fabric of the society if the majority actually followed your lead. You are so principled you took money and skills from an organization funded by theft and run my a country that supports slavery. Principled... What you are is consistent (here, not in your actual life). But consistently wrong is an option. We have corrupt police officers. Are you against having a police force? Our military has done dastardly things over the years. Are you against the military? You trust no politicians, so should we simply have no representative body? Taxation is theft, yet you drive on public highways. Do you think the Interstate system would have spontaneously formed without government involvement, or do you believe we'd be better off without it? Of course, but when you propose a system that has no basis in reality, and proclaim it to be the most moral option, it's on you to explain why it works, and works better than what we have. Libertarians have all sorts of "principled" stances that blow up in their face the moment they have the power to implement them. Reference the article about Grafton, New Hampshire. You describe instances of human failings and hypocrisy as though you are letting us in on some big secret or conspiracy. Yeah dude, the failings of individuals is specifically why we have the freedom-infringing systems we are accustomed to today. Its just like the Libertarian stance on drugs (which is pants-on-head stupid). Total freedom, stay out of my life! Tell me you've never had to deal with a heroin addict without telling me. The problem with Libertarianism is that it portrays human nature in a fundamentally false way. It ignores completely portion of the population that simply lacks the capacity to act safely or rationally. It ignores the reality of mob-formation and action. Some of the freedom-infringing rules we have exist because some problems will be dealt with by mobs if left to fester, and mobs tend to perform microsurgery with hand grenades. Again, point to any remotely libertarian system that has functioned successfully for decades or centuries. Hell, the rich libertarians all move to Puerto Rico (because taxation is theft) but of course they have no problem living of the stolen wages of others that go to P.R. by the billions each year. Because your "principled" stance is silly. You live in the most freedom-causing nation in human history. Every single country on Earth today that has more freedom for there citizens exist at the luxury of our efforts. They exist because we have taxes and we have a draft. All you have are hunches that if we dropped these mutually-agreed-upon systems (because like it or not, we have the draft and taxes at the consent of the governed) everything would just keep going awesomely. Yet you have zero evidence that your hunch is in any way valid. Its the exact same nonsense the communists always wave around for their equally unrealistic system. It would work if we just did it the right way. Uh huh.

Gotcha. Made up standards and utopian fantasy. Where exactly is the most sacred liberty and freedom spelled out as the right to partake in the riches and spoils of a civilization without being responsible for it's defense or maintenance? Again, plenty of instances of bad conscription (Vietnam), but that doesn't invalidate the concept. And your entire argument boils down to I believe it, so it's not just my preference, it's literally the most sacred moral precept. But your argument isn't religious, and it's not supported by any functional civilization in human history, so it's just.... Bullshit. The founders could have created a nation that put individual liberty at the apex and subordinated everything else, but they didn't. Individual liberty is *one* ingredient to creating a just and prosperous society.

Okay so you are this silly. So if a country has conscription, you have zero liberty? Zero? So your level of freedom in America is the same as your level of freedom in say, Venezuela, or Iran? Or perhaps even lower than Venezuela or Iran... Right? It's all just a farce, yes? I didn't need such a succinct example of the absolutism I was describing, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Your military service is truly a paradox. You gave up even *more* freedom and liberty to defend "a farce." You were paid with stolen wages to serve a slave state. That's a hot take. I'm still waiting on that example country that did not rely on taxes and/or conscription. If you get a moment.

$5 says all the legacies stop hiring by the end of this year. AA is obviously already there.

Agree with everything. I don't think the furloughs are coming in the immediate future. Definitely not this year, and maybe not even next. But I'd be shocked if Delta didn't stop hiring soon. These companies are mindless share price machines, and they tend to mimic each other on almost everything. I think the more likely future is that those plane orders that are backed up are going to be canceled. Not all, but most. The airline executives will start talking about how it worked out better this way, because they were purchasing those planes on the assumption that the 22-23 travel boom would be permanent. That was always a crazy assumption. Delta has a much older fleet, so you guys might not cancel but American's planes are relatively new. This is just the way it goes, and if it wasn't for Boeing an Airbus shitting the bed, I think the airlines would have continued hiring up until the day they furloughed. At least this way there will be some time for the retirements to chip away at the overage, and by the time we're in a proper recession the manning situation might not be so dire. Age 67 failing was a godsend. To any hopefuls reading this, I still strongly strongly suggest that you get an airline job at the first company that will hire you. Something to remember is that not having an airline job is worse than being furloughed if your long-term goal is to retire as an airline pilot. That's because when you are furloughed you have no responsibility for maintaining flight currency, because you will be brought back in no matter what, retrained on the company dime, and able to regain currency flying passengers around. Then you can switch to whatever company you want. If you decide to ride the furlough out in the guard or reserve, this means you can take a non-flying job, which is generally better for the family life anyways. However if you aren't furloughed, then you will be competing with the backlog of pilots once hiring resumes, and you will have been expected to maintain flying currency throughout the furlough period. You always have the option of declining the return from furlough if you end up finding a job that you like more.

It's beginning. Buckle up.

It's probably not that huge of a ruling if it's 8 to 1. But they did clarify the difference between posing a danger and lacking responsibility, which is a move in the right direction. Slow and steady, this court is the most pro gun court in my lifetime.

You can't be this silly. Have you ever heard a single person going on a 365 seriously claim that they were being enslaved? No one said you had to be happy about being drafted, just like you don't have to be happy about that 365. If obligations didn't suck, they'd be hobbies. This would be a bit less painful if you guys just admitted you got a little over your skis with the slavery and theft nonsense, and instead just critiqued conscription in a somewhat less hyperbolic manner.

Calling taxation theft and conscription slavery is absolutist. But anyways, bye.

So does childhood.

Dude, thank you, that's the best way I've seen it described. Libertarianism is the conservative version of a girl being "bi" in college, or a high-schooler wearing a Che Guevara t shirt, or a soccer mom getting a tramp stamp. Also that article is hilarious

Individual liberty is *one* factor in the creation of a nation. If it was the only factor, there would be no nation in the first place. You determine which individual liberties you violate by measuring how they allow for the exercise of freedom by others. The simple example is laws against murder. Your individual liberty to kill who you want infringes on the victim's right to life as they see fit (or at all). We, as a society, decided that police are the mechanism for enforcing laws, and that requires money, which requires taxation. Your freedom to not pay taxes is infringed because the police must exist to enforce your many other freedoms. Obviously there are plenty of laws and regulations that fail this balancing test, but that does not nullify the concept. "Taxation is theft" is some truly Simple Jack political reasoning. Once again, name a single functional society in all of human existence that persisted without conscription or taxation. Until then it's no more a valid political construct than communism. Atlas Shrugged was a fictional love story, not a handbook for running a nation.

As I said, there are simply realities of being human. One of them is that you are stuck on a giant ball full of other people. You have to be born to people who you have no control over their beliefs or ideologies. Just like your children will be. It is impossible to exist in a society that does not place obligations on you, because the very existence of that society required obligations of others. Libertarianism is arguing for something that cannot exist. Also, taxation is not theft. Taxation is taxation. It's just another thing that you don't have to do. Don't work, there is absolutely no forcing function for work, and you can live your whole life without paying any taxes. Of course if you want any of the luxuries provided for in a modern society, especially one that is heavily capitalist (as the libertarians so dearly love), then you have to make some sacrifices to get what you want, because you expect to get those things from other people. Those other people have formed a society that has things like taxation and conscription. Like Lawman, just vote. The libertarians have quite consistently gotten dog shit results in every election, which means people simply don't agree with them. But those majorities are supposed to adapt to the desires of the libertarians? There is a lot of very good foundational theory in libertarianism. But when you get to the practical level it's almost always a bunch of well-off intelligent people with limited experience dealing with the weakest/dumbest/most psychotic in our population. The libertarian stance on drug policy is a perfect example.

You do enter with consent. As an adult you can fuck off to somewhere else if you don't like it. You just can't wait until your number is called to suddenly want to leave the country. No other better options? Welcome to reality. This is like complaining that it's oppressive to be born as a male or female. I guess, but those are the options. There are biological realities to being human, and there are social realities to being human. The United States has done a better job than any state in history at mitigating the social downsides of humanity while still maintaining a system that functions across multiple generations/centuries. That doesn't mean every draft is just; Vietnam was a joke. But WWII was not. As I said, libertarianism as a practical ideology is great until you actually need to run a society. It's a solid starting point for any political conversation, but the absolutism inherent in the ideology is why it can never actually work.

Isn't he the JQP guy? He's gotten even wordier, and that says a lot coming from me 🤣😂

Gotcha. No example. Humans are messy. I 100% agree with you that our debt will be a huge problem. But it's a predictable, historically common, and inescapable problem. And ours is not remotely the worst. Huge problems are just a part of the species.

No they don't. You are conflating politics with the citizenship. Abortion is another example where "we the people" sit in the sane middle between two insane political positions. Your average Democrat didn't vote for Biden because they believe in giving puberty blockers to children. I await your example of a single society that was formed and survived through the ideals you are currently promoting. I used to think I was a Libertarian until I realized it's the same as a Progressive at the functional level. Ideologies that require a history they abhor to create a safe society that allows them to hold impractical absolutist ideals.

The fact they have cheese already makes it better than half the Air Force Burger Burns I've been to. Every single outdoor event has a grill and you'd swear no one in the military heard that you can put stuff on a burger. Cheese, ketchup, mustard... And the shittiest patties you can get from services. Not a tomato or pickle for miles.