Lord Ratner

I'd run a bus full of orphans of a cliff for a threesome with her and AOC.

What generation do you think made this possible? What's the average age in Congress? What generation has dominated academia for the past 30 years? Who ran the Fed? Obviously it's not an indictment on *all* boomers. There are plenty who lived honest, honorable lives. But anyone who decries the laziness, weakness, sensitivity, neediness, absence, wokeness, etc of a generation that is only just now reaching the age and ability to have influence over the vast systems they are a part of (millennials, the genZers are still completely subordinated) is being obtuse. Millennials did not create participation trophies. They didn't create infinite useless social-studies degrees to justify tuition costs for themselves. They didn't increase the tuition costs, nor did they increase the administrative staffs. They didn't change the interpretation of Title IX. They didn't put critical theory or Marxism into the curriculum, nor did they invent critical race theory or intersectionality. They didn't create CDOs, mortgage backed securities, or order-flow processing fees. They didn't set the interest rates to zero. They didn't rezone entire regions to prevent stable housing growth. They didn't lower the lending standards in 2002-2006, and they didn't bail out the banks when those lending standards destroyed them. They didn't invent Quantitative Easing and they didn't raise the debt ceiling a few dozen times. They didn't outsource our entire manufacturing base to a geopolitical adversary. They didn't come up with global warming and they certainly didn't fly their private jets to Davos to pontificate on carbon emissions. There's a huge list of societal changes that the US underwent from 1990-present, and the boomers were overwhelmingly steering the ship. Gen X certainly didn't help, but they were more profiteers than anything, and their sins, the wholesale destruction of the common polity through social media algorithms designed to increase marketing revenues, are another topic. I'm sure our generation will have our own sins, but that doesn't change the facts, or who owns them. The successful millennials who were lucky to have good parents (another factor that didn't used to matter as much in America), good genetics, and good timing should be wary of leaving the others behind. That evolved sense of fairness is not easily tamed. The boomers who created the greatest income inequality in modern American history will be dead by the time the bottom half radicalizes and starts "eating the rich." If the poor can't save (0% interest rates + inflation = savings destruction), can't invest (wildly overpriced equities), can't support a family on a single income, and especially when the implications of the Millennials being the first generation to be worse-off financially than their parents becomes the norm, cheap TVs and free phones won't keep them quiet.

Neat. But societies don't work through anecdote. You can pull yourself up by the bootstraps all you want (I certainly did as I sit comfortably in the upper 10%), but the distribution of wealth doesn't lie, and the boomers leveraged trillions of future wealth into their pockets, so now their kids have to pay more for housing, education, transportation, and investments. All while real wages have stagnated or declined. But hey, we can get TVs pretty cheap... And while all this has happened, the upper echelon of society has engineered weapons-grade blinders to avoid the unpleasantness of the increasingly desperate reality of those in the bottom half. It's much more comfortable that way, until the proletariat come knocking on your door with their pitchforks and torches. Most intelligent animals have a very finely-tuned sense of fairness, and brother, it hasn't been fair for a while. COVID was the single greatest transfer of wealth to the top earners in history. Most people can't follow the complicated chain of financial implements used to move money from the middle-class pockets into the investment accounts of the rich(Robinhood, Bitcoin, etc), but they can still smell a scam somewhere in there. What's amazing to me is how the conservatives have been asleep at the wheel. They seem so fucking proud of their non-representative success stories, like yours, that they have completely missed the raping and pillaging of our capitalist system by politicians, foreign actors, and the financial industry. Those who *do* are now subordinated to those who manipulate. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll know very soon. The chickens have all come home to roost at the same time, and the "smart money" (insiders) are already positioning themselves for the pain. I expect they'll all be on CNBC shilling their holdings to the retail investors before they become much less valuable. The final scam before the bill comes due.

Overturning Roe does not ban abortion, as you said, and I don't think as many states as people think will ban it. I suspect only the most conservative states will outright ban Roe. Most of the rest will probably end up somewhere around where Europe ultimately settled, 12-16 weeks. CDC claims 91% of abortions are week 13 or earlier. So you're probably not going to see enough of a crime spike to rue anything.

In a single sentence you prove my point. Exactly what is an "anti-Democratic opinion? Are you implying the court overruled a democratically enacted law on abortion? I'm not sure at this point that you understand the purpose of the SCOTUS. Or perhaps you aren't familiar with how Roe was ruled? I'm but a layman, but I'm pretty sure voting, not opinion polls are how democracies function, yes? Again, please point me to the democratically-enacted abortion law (either through direct voting or representative legislation) that the court has overturned here. Ok, you're fucking with me now, right? Who exactly do you think is *constitutionally charged* with determining what is correct in the constitution? I'll give you a hint, there are only 9 correct answers... This goes back to you not not understanding how an originalist works on the court. He did not call for re-examining whether you can use contraceptives with your wife. He called for re-examining whether that determination is meant to be a legislative one, or a judicial one. If you can't grasp the difference then this conversation will go nowhere. But you wouldn't be alone. Yes, exactly how Roe cited the 14th amendment. And yet there's nothing in the Fourteenth amendment that in any capacity protects abortion. This is where reading either Roe itself or the majority opinion would be valuable, as it quite clearly spells out the utter lack of support within the 14th amendment for abortion protections. Let's take a look: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Life and property obviously aren't at issue here (unless you mean the fetal life, which you don't). So we have liberty and equal protection. Now, if you believe that in 1868 the country believed that anti-abortion laws represented a threat to the liberty of women, I'm not sure you'll find much historical support for that. So liberty is out. And men are not given any special privilege to abort a fetus, not does constitutional law consider gender differences to be "unequal protection." So explain to me, slowly, because I don't read much, how the fourteenth amendment applies. This is another one of those strange misunderstandings of how the court works, which is much more eloquently explained in the majority opinion that I could ever hope to do. But this logic doesn't hold in any historical context, as we have some pretty heinous rulings that had to be overturned 50 plus years later to right egregious wrongs. I think every black American is quite happy that stare decisis is not immutable. I don't think you know as much as you think you know.

You fundamentally do not understand the constitution, and thus do not understand Thomas. *Exactly* like Roe and the inferred right to privacy, substantive due process is a concept that has no actual basis in the constitution. Therefore regardless of their views, an originalist will oppose such precedents. The inability to separate legal reasoning from personal beliefs is a foundational flaw in progressive ideology. If you have the time, read the dissent with the specific focus of finding constitutional arguments. In over 60 pages, there are none. But on the risks of losing birth control and gay marriage, if we're cherry-picking non-majority concurrences, here's some from Kavanaugh, who will be on the court long after Thomas retires. "First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar- riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over-ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents." "For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause" Roe proved that you can't answer deep societal debates with court-derived solutions. Now the system can once again work as intended. The population of each state gets to decide what is best for themselves, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Or a federal law protecting abortion can be passed. Or a constitutional amendment can be ratified. But if those solutions aren't reasonable, then maybe the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy.

Do you have kids? Were you ever one? To imply that a bunch of 16-17 year olds supposed to have the experience and rationality to ignore/refute/buck their parents, teachers, role models, politicians, etc is just absurd. Just like when the boomers complain about millennials and genZ getting participation trophies. Well yeah, clown, who exactly bought the trophy? If your argument blames teenagers, it's probably a pretty weak argument.

This is simply not true in a historical context. As pointed out, the median income is no longer capable of buying the same things. And the distribution of wealth over the generations at specific ages has shifted dramatically lower. The college scam has started millions off with crippling debt. Millennials did not create this world, their parents did.

Shack. Sounds exactly like my rant when these boomer captains bitch about their kids not meeting their expectations. Why aren't you doing well in the world we control? Now we get the privilege of paying for their decades of financial malfeasance while simultaneously funding the social security program they bankrupted, which we will never benefit from. And they have the audacity of invoking capitalism when their kids flirt with socialism, when in reality their kids are only leaning towards socialist solutions because they watched their parents' generation drag capitalism into an alley and rape it for the last 30 years. And just wait, their over-leveraged, over invested 401k accounts are going to implode and they'll be back to the government trough for another bailout, all while lecturing us on responsibility and hard work 😂🤣

Shack.

That's fucking rich. Seriously, do you pause for even a second before stabbing your justice boner straight through your keyboard? Pathetic

Because as soon as the west loses interest, Ukraine is toast.

Two fundamental failures of the "elites" running the world: 1) They are generally some of the smartest people in the world, and a certain level of intellectualism has a profound effect on motivations and decision-making. In particular, the intellectual class are disproportionately agreeable and conscientious. They also generally believe that the rest of the population, given the proper resources and framing, will come to the same conclusions/actions they have. This is false. The "animals" kill for sport, and this is inconceivable to the intellectuals. They recognize the behavior, but they are incapable of predicting it. 2) They believe their intellect makes them immune to basic human nature. The best example of this is the endless stream of generals/politicians/celebrities/pastors who get caught cheating or otherwise engaging in unacceptable sexual behavior. But stealing, lying, and cheating (professionally) are other fine examples. So you have the vast majority of the academic and political sphere that doesn't understand the motivations of the proletariat they seek to rule, while overestimating their own capabilities. Then we wonder why they fail so consistently in their jobs/predictions.

There it is. If you disagree with me, it's a phobia. It calls into question everything else you say.

Ok, I see what your doing. Fair game.

For what?

You should worry because it represents the continuation of the AF's failure to handle retention. It's great if you're an aspiring CAIP, and I agree, they'll be fully capable of teaching the syllabus. But if you're in the uniform, you should be quite convinced at this point that it will only get worse from here, because no one in charge is seemingly capable of wrapping their head around retention. Making your life better will *always* be the last, and least acceptable option.

What did you expect from the same leadership caste that ran the service for the past 20 years? They were never good at leading or managing, they just relied on the patriotism of youth and the comfort-seeking of age (amplified by an uncertain economic environment) to solve their manning issues. Now the patriotism is diminishing in the next generation and the older pilots have realized that making 2-3x the pay for 16 days of easy work a month is worth the fear of change... So they are scrambling. Add on the insult that the O6-O10s had to eat a million shit sandwiches, leave their families behind, and repeatedly fight force reductions over their careers, but now they have to convince/beg/bribe a bunch of Millennials and Gen-Z to stay. Good luck.

How shocking, an organization that uses monetary policy as its sole tool to meddle with the economy releases research that absolves them from the obvious and measurable effects of their meddling. I look forward to NAMBLA's soon-to-be-released study that disproves the connection between pedophiles and childhood trauma in victims.

Is this some sort of Keynesian fever dream? You are taking government action in meddling with the economy, designed specifically so they can achieve ends that do not occur naturally in an unmolested economic system, and using the results of those actions as evidence that the outcome was inevitable. This is effectively why we are in the catastrophe we're in right now. The Fed completely and totally failed to achieve their 2% inflation target over a period of decades, and were unable to identify why. Then, when the massive deflationary forces of globalization were brought to an immediate halt by the pandemic, the extreme inflationary measures the FED had been taking for years were finally able to take effect, uncontested by the deflation that had been hiding the results of government spending. And when that started, the Fed spent a year outright denying it, then recharacterizing it, before finally admitting its existence and now claiming that the very same economic philosophies and policy tools that led to the disaster are somehow the solution. The entire field of advanced economics has devolved into a secular religion that requires absolute faith in a set of principles that are unsubstantiated and fail upon first contact with reality, every single time they are used. And it's even funnier when you realize it's just a bunch of political opportunists, steeped in worthless academia, who have been tasked with the unenviable chore of creating an intelligent sounding justification for what their political masters wish to do: spend more money than they have access to. And because of this, our entire banking industry has morphed into a one-way money siphon designed specifically to take advantage of these political cowards and their obviously absurd economic policies. If you can't beat 'em... But yeah, let's hear more about debt is actually good. Everything is going great.

Been involved in the union much? I've been blown away by how leaky *everyone* is. Once you get connected to the "swamp" within your union, you start getting texts anytime anything happens, v from multiple people. The gossip and whisper campaigns are amazing, all the way to the top.

Exactly.

That's about the quality of analysis I would expect when you ask a Polish 50-year-old contractor about a geopolitical dispute in a region his family has deep and emotional ties to.

Of course it can. It has been for decades. But the Air Force isn't suddenly interested in reevaluating that mix to see if there's a better distribution of sim and aircraft hours that will result in an acceptable product. They fucked up, they're out of specific resources, and they are going to mold the solution to fit the shortage, not the training/proficiency requirements. We all know the score. How many of these new methodologies include more time in aircraft? When all of your testing scenarios support a predefined conclusion, in this case, more same time will allow for less aircraft time, the result is predetermined. I wasn't around. Did we buy the T-1 because we determined that business jet-trained students do better in the MAF than pilots who successfully completed the T38 syllabus? I doubt it...

I agree with you entirely there. And I think it's an acceptable middle ground. I think the order is lawful, but exceptionally questionable. Questionable based on the direct impact of COVID to the military demographic (minimal) and the failure of the vaccines to prevent transmission.