Lord Ratner

Yeah, it's been fucking incredible for nearly every demographic compared to any other period in history. Seriously.

How does the government force you to do anything? This is a fairly familiar concept for anybody in an airline union.

Well there was an attempt to compel tow truck operators into moving the trucks, which is an all together different and much uglier beast then the government merely preventing a certain action. So I would suspect at some point they would attempt to order the truckers to work. Unfortunately, Canadian government seems to have forgotten that the people who exist on the lower end of the "enlightened" spectrum, who they have been happy to ignore while the filthy blue collared maintained the fragile workings of an advanced economy, well those people don't particularly give a shit when they are ordered to do something.

Except Fox News isn't bringing in "experts" to explain how Nazi imagery is actually an understandable-if-not-unfortunate manifestation of the struggle for freedom. Yet throughout the BLM riots there was a nonstop parade of excuses and sometimes outright tolerance of criminal behavior from mainstream liberal sources. You want them to be the same, but they are not.

Exactly. The double standard always adapts itself to remain a double standard. And the BLM riots were "protesting" a blatant misrepresentation of policing in America.

Also, if money is your primary concern, remember that *no one* makes the big bucks working for the man (except actors and athletes). If you're motivated and intelligent enough to make it in the business world, you're almost certainly capable of running a business yourself. The time required to get to the executive level is usually longer than the time to start making good money being the founder. Obviously the risk is much higher too

Just now noticing this? It's incredible how many movies pander aggressively to China. Once you see it you'll notice it everywhere.

I have a friend who, during every takeoff in the KC-135 would say "I can't believe Nancy is making us do this." She was the OG that absolutely no one respected and he figured if something happened, it might make her life a bit harder for the hell of it.

Yeah, it's just too clever by half.

All great points, but the fact is we do have Russian oil coming across the sea, and the amount of fossil fuels that crosses oceans every day is eye-watering. The reality is we don't have to deal in absolutes. Pipelines that would only serve North America reduce the amount of oil and gas crossing the oceans, distorting the supply on the European side and reducing demand for Russian product. Getting to a point where the flow goes in the other direction would have a huge impact far before the unrealistic goal of replacing all Russian output. That's not to say it's the most effective strategy either, but the question was asked how it has an effect, and it does have an effect. But if the Democratic party wasn't overrun by the anti-human climate movement, which to this day has no logical coherence to it, there would be a wildly effective way to put a huge dent in Russia's energy leverage. Nuclear power, developed and subsidized by the United States could be implemented across Eastern Europe. Not only would it have the foreign policy effect of diminishing Russian influence, it would reduce carbon emissions more effectively than any other alternative energy source being championed by the progressives. Charge foreign nations just enough for the fuel and consulting to break even. We can get into another discussion about nuclear power, but it ties into everything else the Democratic party (now almost fully taken over by the progressive movement) does. Namely, nothing they do syncs up with what they say. If you care about developing nations and you care about carbon emissions, and you care about Russian aggression, the only solution that satisfies those goals is nuclear. But they don't care about developing nations, and they don't care about the environment. They are sentimentalist anti-human relativists, and if you want to start understanding the positions they hold, you need to stop looking at what they say they support, and start framing everything from the perspective of what they are against. Then everything starts to make sense. Spoiler alert, they are against power imbalances. They've just been smart enough to realize that you can't campaign on things you're against, because people resonate with causes *for* something.

We're not a democracy, dude. We're a representative republic. You're advocating against the American system. That's fine, but you're advocating against the most successful system of government in the history of humanity in favor of a historically much less successful system. Evidence and history are not on your side. Of course there is somewhere that direct democracy can and often is implemented... The local level. Again, it's not a quirk of our system, it's the whole damn point. Our system was never designed for uniformity across the states, if that is almost exactly what Democrats are arguing for. And they do so as you have, without acknowledging the reality that you are arguing directly against the intended and established system of this country. Reading your post, it feels like you're explaining things as though we don't understand your perspective. But your perspective is centuries old. The people who started this country did so using a system that intentionally prevented exactly what your advocating for, because they had experienced exactly how catastrophic it can be. There's nothing unique about the principals of governing in 2022. What's changed in the modern world is that even smaller groups of people can exert disproportional influence on the government and thus pervert the will of majorities. And you would make that worse. Put simply, your advocating for rapid change while the founders did everything in their power to put a speed limit on change.

Obviously economics always apply, but this isn't just about wanting to save a few bucks. Russia has a tremendous amount of leverage in the area because European countries can't just go get their natural gas elsewhere. There's a huge difference between "if we make this political move we're going to have to spend more money on power generation" and "if we make this move there's a good chance the lights go out." Fossil fuels are regularly shipped all over the world; transportation is not nearly as big of an issue as production is, and the Biden administration is quite explicitly dedicated to reducing American production. How exactly are we going to replace Russia as the supplier of European fuel when we are still importing fuel from Russia ourselves? And your take on Nord Stream 2 is so backwards you probably just need to reset your stance and do a little digging.

You don't know what increasing the supply of fossil fuels from non-Russian suppliers would do to impact a military action that is being leveraged with the threat of cutting off natural gas supplies to Europe from Russia? You're a bit in the dark on this one

The solution to a lack of moderation is not to reward a lack of moderation. It's very easy to win 51% of the Senate. It's a lot harder to win 60%, and damn near impossible to win 67%. 75% would take a massive societal shift. Those are good thresholds for the types of changes that requires those thresholds. Our system was literally founded by people who were terrified of mob rule. I'm perpetually amazed by how many people, who like all humans dislike change in their own lives, seem oblivious to the dangers of minimally-supported change. Shortsightedness is the hallmark of liberal thought. Some of the most consequential legislation in history made it past the filibuster, but you think the problems we face today are higher-stakes? That's the second hallmark of liberal thought: every issue is the-most-significant-challenge-we've-ever-faced. But it's all lies. Cynical politicians (who know they are presiding over a fair and functioning society) are manufacturing fear and outrage to fuel their vanity and power. There's no money in peace. And they are going to cause a regression that's going to hurt people while they skitter off to the shadows like the cockroaches they are.

It's almost as though local control is an effective way run a massive nation. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Yeah, but that's largely because I think the next few years are going to be economically terrible, and that colors voters like nothing else. Biden owns it like every president owns the economy, deserved or not. Biden has also made the border situation a complete disaster, and that's the original issue that got Trump elected. Pile on some not-unfounded rhetoric about the racist and anti-science topics of CRT and transgenderism being put into enough schools to make a dent, and Biden is going to have a tough time on the debate stage. Plus his clear cognitive decline. Biden is not then man he was is 2019 even If I'm wrong and the economy is fine, different story. I think Kamala loses to any reasonable candidate. The DNC will do everything they can to get rid of her, as they should.

Stacy Abrams? It would be fascinating to see the Democrats embrace an election denier so soon after Donald Trump. Buttigeg has no spine, he's a self hating white guy, which gets you kiddos from the commentariat, but not the voters. Klobuchar is solid, for a dem. Biden is not responsible for the current economic situation, but he wanted to dump 3.5 plus trillion dollars onto an already raging inflation fire, so regardless of his culpability, he's embracing it. I think Biden vs Trump 2.0 goes to Trump at this point, but way too early to be sure. It's going to be way too easy for him to point at the impending financial catastrophe and say "see? Look at what you got for picking Joe." Trump is also very good at leveraging the Democratic psychosis regarding transgender politics, border security, and other only-political-elites-think-this-way topics against the Democrats. Since Biden has been very visible and on the record for the past 4 years as president, he won't be able to do with the rest of the Democrats do and pretend like they just happened to have different positions on these issues. He has to own the party position. I think against any other democrat, Trump loses. I sincerely hope that we don't run that experiment. The biggest threat for the Democratic party is that they have committed to a bunch of extreme positions that the liberal voters were generally able to ignore because they were removed from everyday life. But Virginia showed that once those issues start creeping into real life, support for the party falls off. I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen more Democrats jumping ship towards the center after the Virgina kids and NJ near-miss, in fact some seem to be doubling down, but I'm fairly certain that by August or September every Democrat up for election is going to look a whole lot like Joe Manchin.

RINO? Because they didn't support the unbelievably stupid election protest? I'm not as confident with Haley since she's been out of the spotlight for a while, but why do you consider Crenshaw not-conservative? Unless you mean RINO literally, which I consider a good thing. Last I checked, the Republican party has been a disgrace for decades, at least starting with Bush. They've been almost as pro illegal immigration as the Democrats have, minus publicly voicing that opinion. They've been weak dicks on foreign policy, when they had a chance to do something about Obamacare they shit the bed. And it would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so tragic how they completely abandoned fiscal responsibility almost immediately after the tea party revolution. It's not just the Democratic party that has to go through an reckoning. Republicans have confused supporting capitalism with enabling billionaire-led multinational corporations that are completely in bed with the Democratic party, simply because they are "business." But their business has been outsourcing jobs to other countries, and almost single-handedly funding all of the radical movements that are decimating our social fabric today. They have presided as the champions of capitalism over the most disgusting distortion of free market ideals in my lifetime, culminating in a pandemic, where for no reason whatsoever, the jobs and activities of the underclass were deemed non-essential, while nearly every single upper class pursuit was enabled and funded. They printed 6 trillion dollars and almost exclusively distributed it to the richest Americans, triggering an inflation wave which is going to devastate the minimal savings of the bottom half while the rich ride the speculative asset bubble to the Moon. Don't worry though, just like in 2008 they'll find a way to sell all of their nonsense holdings before the crash. The Fed will ensure they have enough time to do so by propping up the market until only us silly retail investors are left in play. So who exactly are the Republicans again? And don't give me some obscure Representatives on their first or second term, if the leadership structure of the party aren't "true Republicans" then there's no such thing at all. Exactly how have the top brass of the party acted as true conservatives while Crenshaw has not?

First, Haley is more qualified than DeSantis. Not sure why he'd lead the ticket. Both would be excellent though. Like it or not, people vote with their eyes. The only reason Biden won, with the flaws you identified, is because Trump was a fucking moron. That's it. Biden loses this time around because of the economy. But he's not going to run, which means a clean slate for the voters. Put DeSantis, who's not a household name if you're not a solid liberal or conservative (with mostly predetermined votes) up against someone with pizzazz and melanin, he's toast. Unless of course you're anticipating a conservative wave at the ballot box, which I don't particularly see happening. Especially if Biden drops out. He's very smart, but he's also a bit of a robot. He's learned the lessons of Donald trump, namely that you don't take shit from the media, but he's still just doesn't have that wow factor. Nikki Haley has also learned the media lessons of Donald trump, but she's an attractive, minority, female, daughter of immigrants success story. If you can't see how she's a more powerful candidate, I'd say you're giving too much credit to the American voters for being issues, policy, philosophy based in their voting. Especially the "independent" vote which is largely people incapable of making up their minds. Maybe with 8 years of being a household name he'll have incumbency in his favor. But that's not the story of powerful way to get elected. I'd much rather see Nikki Haley run with Dan Crenshaw as her running mate. Crenshaw is not remotely qualified to be the president yet, but he certainly smart enough, is podcast is a testament to his conservative intellectualism, and he's got the best fucking hook I could imagine for a White Guy. Navy SEAL war hero disabled veteran who wears an eye patch. Can you imagine trying to debate that guy?

Biden will announce that he's not going to run for reelection. That way the Democrats can run a legitimate primary, because they recognize if Kamala is the presumptive candidate, they're done. I expect the entire democratic machine to come out and work against her, just like the Republican machine will work against Trump if he decides to try again. Neither side is interested in running a deeply unpopular candidate right now. My fear is that the Republicans will run Ron DeSantis, who I like a great deal, but he has no hook. Just a boring white guy, and that's not gonna be enough. If he runs as Nikki Haley's vice president, that could do the trick. At least then he'll have name recognition after her second term. I think the Democrats are just as unsure as we are about who they're going to run. The war between the progressive wing and the liberal Wing has only gotten worse since 2020.

All of our scheduling stuff is done on calendar days Work for dropping next months schedule: 9th: put in preferences for next month. Takes a hour the first time, then every month about 10 minutes to copy the template and make some small tweaks. 18th: next month schedule is loaded, spend 10 minutes (max) putting trips into the pilot "trading board" 22nd: Load next months trips into trading software. Runs every day at 0800 and 2000 starting in the 23rd of the prior month. Usually will have to reload the trades before each run from the 23rd until all the trips are gone, usually by the 28th. 5-10 minutes each iteration. 24th: "free for all" training system opens for the next month at 1000. Spend about 10 mins at 0900 loading trades into an optional service that automatically executes trading commands. This gets my undivided attention from 1000-1030. Then I'll look at it a few times a day until my trips are gone, usually by the 28th. Work for picking up flying. I do this on the day-of and day-before any day that I am willing/wanting to fly: Before 1000, look at the open trips for tomorrow, add to ballot if desired. Rarely desired. 5 minutes When I get an alert that a new trip has dropped into "open time," look at my phone to assess the trip. 15 seconds if I don't want it, 1-2 minutes if I do. This happens between 10-100 times a day. I do this because I am very picky about the flights I will accept. If you are willing to be less choosey you can load criteria into the website once a day and just let it ride. So I look at my phone a lot every day, but I was doing that anyways. Honestly, the hard part isn't the time, though ironically that's what most pilots recoil at. Pilots want predictability and stability. Get the schedule and don't think about it. That's certainly an option. The hard part is risk tolerance. What if there's no trips to fly? What if you can't drop to zero? What if the senior pilots take the trips? What if I don't get paid? No pain, no gain. The bigger the hub, the better the options. The closer you live to the airport, the better. Flying weekends means better trips if you're junior since the senior pilots want weekday stuff. The more flexible you are the better. If I was willing to fly more and be away from home more I could have made $350k I think. Instead I was home a lot, flew very few hours and made $270k. But be honest with yourself about your risk tolerance. Statistically speaking you will not do what I do. And if you don't, it's still an amazing job with great pay and lots of time off.

Sure. In the list, each item number is for the corresponding month in 2021. Some context: Example: 1. 90 Hours / 8 nights / +2 Covid First number is my hours of pay. The low end for a reserve pilot is 73. Normal for a line holder just flying their schedule is 78-90. For a normal line holder you would expect 16 days of work with 8-13 nights away from home to reach 90 hours, but it depends on trip composition. If you fly 15 turns (single day out-and-back) you can make 90+ hours with no nights away. That's usually for the senior pilots, or those who do what I do. Second number is actual nights I was away from home Third number is the modifier based on extenuating circumstances. For June and July we were given 48 hours post vaccination quarantine. Any trips that touched that 48 hours were dropped with pay. I positioned a 4-day trip to touch the beginning of the window and another 4-day to touch the end, per shot. So the third number represents a realistic number of nights away from home if I had flown to get those hours 95 Hours / 1 Night / +7 furlough return 78 Hours / 7 Nights / 87 Hours / 5 Nights / +3 10-day quarantine 96 Hours / 9 Nights / 178 Hours / 9 Nights / 133 Hours / 5 Nights / +3 vaccine drops 112 Hours / 1 Nights / +4 vaccine drops 103 Hours / 4 Nights / 91 Hours / 5 Nights / +1 vacation 89 Hours / 4 Nights / +2 vacation 136 Hours / 7 Nights / 101 Hours / 9 Nights /

Absolutely. This has been my message to military dudes and dudettes, and most particularly my message to their spouses. You may think you know why you want to live somewhere, but you might not be considering the totality of what that decision will entail. My wife has absolutely no family in DFW, except for of course me. And living in one of the mega hubs has allowed me to run this hustle, which means not only am I home more, I'm home on more of the days that I want to be home. All the while making much more money for much less work than I would as a commuter, or even at a smaller hub. That's not to say everyone has to do what I do; I remember how many friends getting out were moving to where their wife's family lived. Understandable. After 10 to 20 years of getting jerked around by the military so your husband/wife can do awesome things with awesome people in awesome airplanes while you sat at home, it's completely reasonable to want to make a major decision for once like where to live. But the airlines are a strange and stupid career, and they are most heavily influenced by where you live. So everybody choosing not to live at a primary hub for whatever airline they work for needs to very strongly consider the implications. I think we take for granted that the airlines allow you to live anywhere. Telecommuting for other jobs has similarly detrimental effects on your career outlook and earnings. If you look at all of the factors and determine that earning less and working more is a price you're willing to pay to live somewhere else, then by all means, I'm happy for you. But for my wife and I, as we get ready to have kids, we decided it would be better for me to be home more often than for our kids to have more time with the rest of the family. As for the money stuff, I think the rest of the world is waking up quite suddenly to the financial reality of the last 2 years of pandemic fuckery... It's going to be fascinating and terrifying to watch the Fed juggle inflation and the associated social unrest it causes, with their true and unstated primary purpose, propping up the stock market. The market is eating shit on the potential of going from unfathomably low interest rates (0-.25%) to mildly less unfathomably low interest rates (1-1.25%). Last time we had an inflation panic, it followed the government expanding the monetary supply by around 13%. It took interest rates of 20% and two recessions to beat that inflation back down. This time the government expanded the monetary supply by around 25%... Buckle up. How does that relate to the airlines? Pilots always lose in recessions. Spend accordingly.

Yeah, I know. But as far as starlets go, she's not even that hot.

They have the advantage of being the closest military to their borders. Their focus should be slowing the enemy down long enough for the adults to get in position and save what's left. Every country will have a different way of doing that, but it will always be a very fatal specialty. If they aren't willing to die for their country, we sure we hell shouldn't.