Lord Ratner

The boom in the nearest tanker

You edited your comment to improve your insult?

A better way to phrase it (back in 2013 at least, though I can't imagine it's gotten better), is that the AF wants to make a quality cut. When I turned down a T-38 (2009), it was only one of three for my class, and the next guy was still in the top third of the class. With classes having 5 or 6 -38s, and even more people choosing T-1s for lifestyle/career/whatever reasons, sometimes people got -38s that the resident fighter pilots didn't believe were of the correct caliber. But they went anyways, because, as the RTUs are facing (I hear), the AF is going to get it's numbers, and the denominator, in this case training, can always be changed to normalize the results.

Ah, perfect. This is where we transition to the next phase of this annual conversation. MWS IPs require far less skill and instructional aptitude than UPT IPs. It adds a few hundred thousand pounds to the takeoff weight.

Fighter aircraft are easier to fly, aerodynamically, than heavy aircraft.

This is not entirely accurate. The whole reason we have hotels on base is so they can get their hands on the travel money. They lose it all when you go to a Marriott. I'm not saying I agree with the strategy, but if you don't think Wing Commanders are constantly updated on how well the revenue generators are doing, you're incorrect. It's the same thing with the O-Clubs. Of course the AF, in it's perpetual quest to deny the long-established fundamentals of business and human motivation (pilot retention, alcohol policies, sexual assault training, mandatory fun runs, etc), has determined that the way to make a restaurant/hotel/bowling center profitable is not to increase the quality and value of the product to increase volume of sales, but to instead limit alternative options through restrictions and mandatory attendance. You know... just like Amazon incentivizes you to shop there by banning you from Best Buy.

It's not about overriding. The JTR only specifies what you get paid. So your commander cannot stop you from getting paid, if it happens. But your commander can order you not to do something that you would get paid for BEFORE you do it, and it would be legal. Then, if you disobeyed, you would still get paid per JTR rules, but you can be punished for not following an order. Two examples. You have a TDY coming up, leaving from an airport 45 minutes away. Commander tells you to use the base shuttle service to save the squadron money. You're a piece of shit, so you just take a cab because you didn't want to use the base long-term parking lot. JTR says you will be reimbursed for the cab. Commander says you get an LOR for telling her you would use the shuttle. Both happen. You, a C-17 AC assigned to UPT, want to take a T-6 to San Francisco for the 2017 Brony convention in the Castro district. Commander says the squadron can't afford it. You tell him you and your hetero life partner, a FAIP, will stay at a friend's house in Alameda to save the squadron mad cash. But when you get there, your FAIP mentor immediately finds himself overwhelmed by a deluge of nonbinary polysexual panda-kin sex addicts. Swept away by the raw sexual fury and unkempt body hair of your fellow Brony convention-goers, you decide to each get your own hotel rooms in the heart of San Fran, where the lodging per diem is a conservative $12,500 per night. After returning to Vance in what can best be described as the moistest T-6 in the fleet, you submit your travel voucher. Seconds later, the lights go out, because your voucher was so expensive the squadron had no choice but you use the pot of money dedicated to utilities to fund your pseudo intra-species erotica vacation. Your commander, who for some reason looks just like a certain purple Clydesdale you got way too close to over the weekend, is reasonably upset. Per JTR rules, you must be reimbursed for the lodging. Per UCMJ and AFI, your commander is entitled to rip off your souvenir unicorn horn and stab it straight through your lying heart. See? Discipline and reimbursement are separate issues.

Oh dear. This might be the best indicator yet that we are in trouble

Color me shocked...

FYI. A commander can order you to stay on base (or at a particular hotel), but if you disobey, as long as you still follow the JTR, they have to reimburse you. Your commander can, however, punish you with paperwork for not following an order.

I get what you're saying, but in this particular instance (foreigner travel ban), how are Americans' freedoms being diminished?

Thank you for proving my point. Wanna check that article again?

Sheer lunacy. The only difference now is that instead of the political advisors listening in the corner then bending the president's ear after, the discourse can happen with all other players present. If politics have no role, why is the secretary of state on the PC? Or do only international politics have a role in national security?

Woe be unto the other members of the NSC, too weak and afraid to continue protecting America under the crushing influence of Darth Bannon. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Political advisors have been there in the past, they just made Bannon official. Obama was the most political president possibly ever, and his political advisors had their hands in everything. I would take all of this much more seriously if the people saying it hasn't been ignoring it completely for the past 8-16 years. But then again, Trump made an art of taking previously established but unacknowledged misdeeds of the political class and weaponizing against them. Why should this be any different?

2017: The NSC and HSC shall have as their regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Security Advisor, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Representative of the United States to the United Nations. [...] The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. 2001: The National Security Council (NSC) shall have as its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisors to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. 2017: The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor. The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed. 2001: The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security, as it has since 1989. The NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as chair). The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.

What is unclear about this? "The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings." Edit to add: Furthermore, since the hullabaloo seems be be over the principals committee, where the memo states: "The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed." Since when did the SECDEF stop being the military representative within the executive branch? I don't know what "fake news" is, but if it exists, this seems pretty close. They were not removed. They were explicitly included. And even if they were excluded, which they were not, they aren't at the same level as the others on the principals committee. Should the CSAF be on the committee? What about the Vance wing commander? Hyperbole, yes, but I think the point is valid.

Check your sources, bro. It's unfortunate, but in this media environment, reading, seeing, or hearing it in the news isn't enough.

No complaints so far, brother. I am enjoying watching the Republicans, who passed about what? 60 repeal bills for ObamaCare when they knew it would get vetoed? All of a sudden not pass a damn thing. Lots of swamp left.

Un-ing real. Do us all a favor and keep this shit to yourself. Are you related to the guy who thinks all business negotiations are rational? This is not how we win the battle, boys and girls. If your wife starts wearing lingerie at night, you don't spit in her face, tell her to put on sweat pants and get a better-paying job. You take the win, say thank you, shake hands, then immediately start pressing for the next win.

This sentence makes it seem as though you've never been involved in a business negotiation.

That was hilarious

The EU nations in NATO are taking advantage of our generosity, and have been for years. They aren't Haiti, or some other natural disaster-ravaged nation. Granted, many of the Americans who are OK with Europe having a pathetic military wish that we would follow suit, but as long as we are paying for them, we should expect a contribution proportional to their economic size.

This! So much this! We aren't in a war at Qatar. If the war can be done over the phone and internet from Qatar, it can be done over the phone and internet from Shaw. Sure, you don't get complete ownership over the mind and body of your "warfighters," but maybe in a manning crisis you can make some compromises...

Surely not...

Do you acknowledge that this is exactly why the EC exists? 2016 wasn't a fluke, it was the EC working exactly as it was intended to. I don't understand why people keep talking about the difference between the EC and the popular vote when the EC exists to protect against the popular vote.