Lord Ratner

Do you though?

Tell me you've never been involved in a legal battle without telling me you've never been involved in a legal battle

As long as you also admit that the entire decision to mandate the vaccinations is equally political, I'll accept your premise. But if you think the mandates are somehow apolitical (justified using illogical reasons that don't hold up to reality) while those against the mandate are political (justifying their stance using illogical reasons that don't hold up to reality), then I'd say you are throwing some pretty big stones from a glass house. And with omicron, the mandates got even sillier.

No, you've actually been quite helpful in demonstrating that no amount of scientific evidence or reality is going to change California's mind, so why should the rest of us suffer? In the hopes that they'll stick to whatever new reopening metric they invent and subsequently disregard? If they fuck their ports up enough, it'll just cause new ports to spring up elsewhere. I'm sure Mexico would love the port business, and you can drive trucks from Mexico straight into Texas. Remember, the business interests that made California an economic powerhouse were born of a much more conservative governance. Stray too far from that and the business will (continue to) leave.

This is rather ironic to come from someone who believes in mandates, if I understand your position correctly. I'm a huge fan of the states' rights concept, so if California wants to lock down forever, more power to them. But mandating citizens in Texas wear masks or get vaccinated because California politicians have terrified their population is retarded. And anti-American.

If you live in a red state you'd know that commerce needs no such encouragement. People are uncomfortable because they are being told they should be. In the places where they aren't being frightened they are back to regular life. This stopped being about disease spread a year ago.

You completely ignored the study I posted, which is undisputed, that shows almost no infection prevention after a few months. Infection ≠ Serious hospitalization or death, which is reduced by the vaccine. But it doesn't reduce the spread for more than a few months, which means mandates are unjustified. But you're just trolling at this point, so carry on.

We need to get away from this idea of "what party you will vote for in the future." If you look at the electoral college in the past, presidents from both sides won overwhelming majorities of the country, and the states swung from left to right like a pendulum. We need to go back to that. There should be no Democratic or Republican voters. Those are teams. There are certainly liberal-minded and conservative-minded people, but those people should make a decision on which politicians and which parties represent their priorities at the moment they cast a vote, and just like those priorities change regularly and in response to the world around us, so too should the people you vote for each election. I know you aren't advocating for party loyalty, but I think we're at a point where even the language we use to describe politics is inadvertently reinforcing the notion that each of us belongs to a political team, and the voting trends support this notion.

*On the internet.

@pawnman, focusing on mandates specifically, how much do you feel they need to reduce the spread to justify a mandate (outside of the military)? A few posts back I posted the research showing minimal effect on spread. To be clear, I'm not arguing about hospitalizations or death. Clearly the vaccine works to reduce that. But it's that justification for a mandate?

Yup. Expect this story to disappear from the national coverage. But it'll get (R)s elected in WI.

If you were talking about a disease that had low transmission rate, *maybe* you could justify a minor reduction as successful. But you would also have to have a massively high infection fatality rate. Covid-19 is exactly the opposite. "Unfortunately, the vaccine’s beneficial effect on Delta transmission waned to almost negligible levels over time. In people infected 2 weeks after receiving the vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, both in the UK, the chance that an unvaccinated close contact would test positive was 57%, but 3 months later, that chance rose to 67%. The latter figure is on par with the likelihood that an unvaccinated person will spread the virus. A reduction was also observed in people vaccinated with the jab made by US company Pfizer and German firm BioNTech. The risk of spreading the Delta infection soon after vaccination with that jab was 42%, but increased to 58% with time." So no, it does not meaningfully prevent transmission. Should we mandate things for "almost negligible" effects? You do have Google, right?

They (the political/activist class) are not ignoring reality, they are attempting to redefine it. It's the well-meaning liberals who fall for the lie who are ignoring reality. For now.

I've tried answering that question for a long time. Since the Kavanaugh hearings. The voters' mindset I get, they just believed the lie they were told. But the people in that picture know they are lying. Why? I think it's because this has become the religion of the progressives. The dogma of power hierarchies and systemic oppression (that old friend, Marx), the original sin of slavery, and the requirement that you proclaim your faith despite what your lying eyes see. There are hymns (SJW vocabulary like antiracism, unconscious bias, systemic racism, white rage, whiteness, privilege), prophets and priests (Ta- Nehisi Coates, Ibram Kendi, Robin DiAngelo), tithing (political campaign donations), confession... The list goes on. And just how the Catholic Church reacted horribly to the enlightenment, and nearly every scientific discovery that even remotely challenged the church's narrative, the progressives *hate* anything that threatens the "perfect word" of their God: the evil and racist nature of the American system, in which there is no justice for the oppressed. That's why they hated Rittenhouse so much, and it's especially why they hated the Darren Wilson case so much, and why they completely ignored the Eric DeValkenaere case. The first case attacks the purity of the cause. If Kyle was justified, then that night in Kenosha really was a riot, not "mostly peaceful protesting" for black rights. The second case reminds us that cops are more likely to be killed by black people than black people are likely to be killed by cops. There are very few actual cases of cops killing unarmed black people on which to build this vision of wide-spread sport-hunting by the police of minorities; Michael Brown was a martyr turned villain. And the last case proves that there is infact justice for minorities in America. Once you accept that the people driving the progressive movement know the narrative they are promoting is false, it becomes a lot easier to predict the behavior. The things you focus on and ignore when protecting a lie are different than when protecting the truth. Gaslighting, straw men, ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, false equivalency... All tactics to distract from a weak position. They have committed to the fundamental notion that America is broken and needs to be radically changed. Build back better, right? They want the "new America" but lack the justification, considering the wild success of the American experiment for *all* citizens. So they are just making it up. Now that they are committed, and their power is tied to that cause, what choice do they have?

When did the burden of justifying mandates fall on the mandated? Vaccination does not stop the spread of Covid. I wish it did, but it does not. In light of this unfortunate news, the case for mandates fails. The virus is too transmissible and the vaccine is too short-lived. And contrary to 18 months of catastrophism, there are no longer wide-scale hospital overloads beyond what hospitals usually operate at. People shouldn't have to resort to religious or medical excuses to avoid doing something they don't want to do when it doesn't even serve the greater good. Vaccinating protects yourself. It does not offer long- or medium-term protection to others. You are either ignorant of the science or subconsciously turning this into a disciplinary fight. Because I said so...

Don't call them that, please. I know what you are trying to convey, but this war is going to be won through a split in the Democratic party, where the more temperate liberals cast out the progressive/socialist/Marxist radicals. That split is going to take *a lot* of dialog between conservatives and liberals. "Woketarded shitlibs" does nothing but shut off the listening part of the brain for anyone who remotely identifies as liberal. It's a free country, so do what you want, but realize you are exacerbating the problem and empowering actual "Woketarded shitlibs" by using childish language that they will use to keep the rational liberals on their team.

The same place it went after Chauvin. These cases are not the cause, they are the symptom. The disease is manifesting everywhere, with Virginia being the most clear infection. I wasn't sure if the disease had gotten bad enough to trigger a strong enough response, but it seems like the progressives are doubling down, so maybe there's hope?

They are not enemies. Merely sheep in wolves' clothing.

Southwest has a bigger presence. There's always been a question at American as to whether or not Phoenix has a long-term future for AA. Considering how weak our footprint is in the west, I don't think it's going anywhere anytime soon, but we certainly don't treat it like it has a future of growth. That being said, they decided to make Charlotte a megabase, so anything is possible. If you want to fly something other than the 737, then your decision is made for you.

They don't. The problem is they don't believe it in the first place. The current system has been set up perfectly so that each side inherently does not believe the other side. This is the problem with making a broad derogatory judgement about the other "side." If you simply disagree with someone, it's not hard to find common ground. But no one wants to have common ground with someone who is evil or stupid. And unfortunately it's not just Democrats now. It blows my mind how many captains I fly with honestly believe that liberal voters hate success, or hate white people, or hate America. Make no mistake, I believe the highest level of political activists, media personalities, and in many cases elected politicians on the left do in fact hate America as it is today and are indeed Marxist at heart. But to think that Insanity infects the average Democratic voter is nuts.

Shack

Hang on, are you implying that healthy military aged people face a significant threat from COVID? The easy way to backup that claim would be to post the number of deaths in the military from COVID. We can operate under the assumption that all of them were unvaccinated, since that's the most likely scenario.

I'm not in anymore, but my opinion was always that if you're not willing to fly under allowable circumstances, then you're not allowed to fly at all. If you don't trust yourself to fly to the training standard, which are the regulatory minimums, what else aren't you comfortable with that you might encounter? Every once in awhile in the kc-135 someone would say that they won't do a 50 flap landing. They'd gotten so complacent with 40 flap landings that they somehow convinced themselves it was unsafe to do the landing the plane was designed for. Eventually 50 flap landings were added as a required currency item, but it was always a fun conversation with someone asking them why they weren't skilled enough Pilots to fly the plane in accordance with SOP.

Yeah we definitely disagree on the importance of the capitol. The BLM riots resulted in hundreds if not thousands of people's lives being ruined, and a few dozen being ended. The capital riots did substantially less damage, and overwhelmingly to the idiots who perpetrated it. I consider the government to be for the protection of the people, so if I have to choose between the the livelihoods of regular citizens in every major city, and the building that failed so spectacularly over the last few years to protect their interests, it's an easy choice for me. And while I get the argument that things are worse when they come from the president, I guess you and I also disagree on the sanctity of the presidency. In my lifetime every president has failed to live up to the standard we should expect. Whether it was Bill Clinton defiling an intern in the oval office, or Obama planting the seeds that have brought us to this new world of chaotic racial division, or everything Trump did publicly, I viewed Trump as merely the outward expression of the political disease that has infected Washington for a long time. And I think that's why they hated him so much. He looked the way they acted, and that was a threat to the very good deal they were all operating under for a long time. I also push back on the notion that the BLM riots didn't originate from a president. Those riots didn't start in 2020, they started in Ferguson years before (with another outright lie supported still to this day by the left), and we're well aware of who the president was at that time. He also had a funny way of not quite endorsing yet casually supporting a notion that was patently false and led people to riot. Very Trumpian of him. Like you said, it's very tribal now. I think liberals have had a very rosy view on political discourse because at the end of the day, until Trump no one was calling them evil for their mainstream beliefs on a national scale. Now the same bitter hate the conservatives have watched for a couple decades is going both directions. Part of me thinks that's a very bad thing for all of us, but maybe that's what it's going to take for both sides to realize that no one wins in this arms race of dishonorable behavior. And on a political level, Virginia proves that the Democrats have violated the only constant rule in American society. Don't fuck with my kids.

Completely disagree. The first consideration: Where do you live? Work there. I have friends at Delta (I'm AA) and I crush them on earnings and hours flown. But I work the system. What type of person are you? If you are the I just fly my schedule type, then go Delta and move to a Delta base. If you are the I live in the loopholes type, then you want the airline with the most problems. That's AA 😂🤣. Like someone above said, the particulars of the loopholes don't matter, you won't be able to appreciate them anyways. But by this point in your life (and especially after being in the military) you should know which type of person you are. But in either case, if DFW is where you are staying, American and Southwest are your options (or cargo, if you can do that lifestyle). We have pilots from nearly every airline living in our Airpark in DFW. I don't know a single one that wouldn't transfer to American if they could take their seniority with them.