Smokin

I don't think I've heard anyone on here, or anywhere else for that matter, saying that Trump is a 'good person'. I would never invite him into my home, but that's true of almost all politicians. He's had multiple wives and apparently cheated on all of them. He's clearly an egomaniac. But an idiot? I realize he inherited a bunch of money, but you still don't get to where he is by being an idiot. Any claim that he's an idiot is not grounded in reality. I can't think of a President in US history that is/was an idiot. Harris on the other hand is clearly a 'shitty person' AND an idiot. Any time she's asked a tough question she does that stupid hackle and then proceeds to string together a sentence that is less coherent than the crackhead on the corner in LA. If you think she got to where she is today by any qualities than her genitalia and melanin, I'd like to try whatever you're smoking. She was offered a job with the DA before she passed the bar, which is absurdly unusual and clearly was paved by a patron, which has continued throughout her life. After she failed the bar, the job offer was not pulled. The majority of lawyers (including every single of dozens of lawyers I know) pass the bar on the first try, which means she dumber than the average lawyer. Average is shockingly dumb, so since she is below average than it is reasonable to think that she is in fact an idiot. The problem is we have very limited choices. 99% of politicians give the other 1% a bad name. We are stuck with voting for the person that advocates the polices that are closest to what we want. Trump's policies are not what I would like to see, but they are better than Harris'.

A named source that is making a personal financial profit from making claims like this. A guy that served on Trump's staff but didn't resign in protest despite apparently thinking that Trump is a fascist. Real trustworthy source. I'd trust something that guy says slightly less than a rumor my first grader brings home from the playground.

Didn't Israel say they wouldn't hit Iranian oil? My bet is they hit something in the logistics train that decreases their ability to sell oil, but not hit refineries and such themselves. Maybe shipyards, docks, etc.

Ruger American is a great rifle series. I own a few of them. Recently dropped the trigger pull on my primary hunting rifle to around 3 lbs and it was a 5 minute process (including spending a couple minutes finding the proper allen wrench). That rifle is plenty accurate for anything other than crazy long range hunting (600+ yards). The other great thing about them is since they are so similar across various calibers, I don't think you have to constantly practice with your hunting rifle shooting $3/round ammo. My .223 and even .17HMR Ruger American are so similar that I do all my off season practice shooting cheap rounds and feel right at home picking up my hunting rifle and hitting the woods.

Totally agree that you need to tell them to take their offer and shove it. They will almost always throw out a low ball offer and tell you it's the final offer and take it or leave it. It's just their way of buying you off for pennies on the dollar. Legal will get you way more and there's a chance the dirtbag company gets banned, especially if you have some pictures and can prove they lied. Obviously a bit late for you now, but some advice for others: Take pictures and/or videos of everything even remotely valuable in the couple days before the movers show up. Also, go through their pick-up inventory with a fine tooth comb before you sign. They're going to try to rush you as they want to leave and you're going to be ready for them to leave as well, but it's your stuff that they probably are going to break. Before a move overseas, we bought some new furniture a week before the move. The movers marked up the brand new furniture on the inventory to make it look like we had picked it up off the curb. I told the movers they could open up the crate, unload it, and show me the damage (it was one of the first things they loaded) or I wouldn't sign it. Obviously they refused to do that, so I crossed out almost all of their condition annotations and wrote "brand new". We got everything we claimed on that move. Finally, I know not everyone is inclined to do a DITY, but I had such bad experiences on my last two TMO moves that I didn't even consider using them again. In 5 full DITYs, I've broken less things total than TMO movers broke in a single move. The rules also recently changed so you get more money. I made over two months pay on my final DITY. It was some serious work and some stress, but everything that I care about arrived in the same condition as we left.

With both JHMCS and 9X, I'd imagine they do. As a bonus, the pilots that survive the war will have life-long neck pain to look forward to...

The inflight align is capable getting you back to about the same accuracy as a ground start. I've seen it back inside low double digit feet accuracy within minutes. Overfly fix would not be practical for an airliner. Passengers would get upset at dipping a wing to see straight down.

You would do it the same way the F-16 EGI works with an in-flight align. For an airliner, once you're out of the jamming, you do an in-flight align and the INUs takes the input data from the user and GPS. You input the heading and maintain straight an level flight for a few minutes while the GPS talks to the INUs. It is very possible as there are platforms that have this capability, but the airlines/FAA haven't seen it as a big enough problem to force the capability (i.e. spend the money for it).

B-1 doing SEAD/DEAD "so the rest of the missions could go safely," a bomber dodging a SAM, and the pilot hearing the missile? Sounds like that story might be pushing the 10% rule.

While I understand what you're getting at, any murder charge would almost certainly result in a not guilty verdict. If this were the AFT airport manager case then I would agree, but manslaughter seems appropriate here.

Maybe, but it might also be intentional for him to talk more about abortion. Many actual conservatives in the Republican party are lukewarm on Trump since he isn't conservative. So if Vance keeps talking about the things those conservatives want to hear then they're more likely to show up and vote on election day.

We'll see. Dems are only excited about Harris because she's not Biden. It'll be interesting to see if that lasts or if they'll remember that she was one of the first primary candidates to drop out 4 years ago because she was polling in the low single digits. DEI politics could come back to bite the Dems. Had Biden chosen just about any of the other primary candidates for a VP back then, I'd bet that person would be up 10 points in the polls and would cruise through the election. On the flip side, had the Republicans nominated just about any other candidate, that person would be up 10 points over Harris.

Why would those with mortgages be starting to sweat? If someone has bought a house since the rates went up then the market dropping should cut consumer spending and help with inflation, so rates should drop. The only reason I see starting to sweat during a market drop is if I need money in the near future that I have invested or if I'm concerned about my job.

An additional possibility is that they already have it but currently fear the ramifications of sanctions and or even it impacting the election in Trump's favor and are saving the revelation to the world for when they (the regime) feels actually threatened.

I think we too often underestimate how much to consider what people say about themselves and what they believe. For example, when Hamas says they want to 'kill every Jew in the world' we would do well to take that seriously. However, there are also people that need to basically be watched on mute because they are either playing to a target audience, just like constantly being the center of attention, or riling up the other side to get a desired reaction. Trump is in this second group. Ignore what he says and pay attention to what he does.

A slightly scary but potentially good use of that would be an Amber Alert. Suddenly every recent model year car on the road is looking for that license plate, kidnappers wouldn't get very far. If you are in public, you have to assume you're on camera these days. Even on your own property, there is limited privacy as police can legally sit somewhere else with a telephoto lens or fly a drone over your property. Will be really interesting to see when a drone case gets to the Supreme Court.

Edit to add: the real military equivalent is a WG/CC writing an illegal sup to a reg that violates Constitutional rights of airman. Someone has paper to hide behind and enforce it, but that doesn't make it legal/right. Takes some balls to stand up to him, but it should be done. I agree that politicians are ultimately to blame. They pass laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and face zero repercussions. Like in the case of the California gun laws I mentioned, courts should start holding politicians in contempt for violating the law. Or I'd love to see someone arrested under an unconstitutional law sue the sponsor lawmaker personally. Not the state or city, but the person that was responsible. Might get politicians to think twice about passing bad laws.

They may have just been doing what they were told to do. But that's no excuse. If your commander gives you a direct order that you know is illegal, you have both a moral and legal obligation to not follow that order. You also took an oath of office (as the police did or should) to support and defend the Constitution. A single one hour continuing ed class on the Constitution should have told them that what they were doing was illegal. If they didn't know better than it is due to willful ignorance. We are rapidly turning into a police state and the better part of a dozen cops busting a weed store (don't legalize them in the first place) is just another example. If they really wanted to clean up the city, then go do it. Start with the violent crime. There are cities in third world countries safer than NYC.

I have and if I just did a fairly standard schedule, I'd be home about 30hrs more on the WB. Obviously that is just a standard line and ignores the scheduling games I could play to get out of flying that standard line in the NB that I wouldn't have the seniority to play in the WB.

I'm not sure what is scarier, the fact that her primary (only?) qualification is the person she sleeps with or the fact that you might be right.

Have you read the case? They made a misdemeanor a felony because it was to 'cover up another crime'. One of many problems with that is the other crime wasn't actually a crime. The defense wanted to call the Federal Election Committee Chairman that was sitting during the "crime" but the judge disallowed so much of the testimony that the defense gave up trying to even call him as a witness. He would have testified that the alleged crime was not actually a crime and thus the maximum charge would have been the original misdemeanor, which even that charge is questionable. WSJ had a great article about it a day or so later. There is zero chance this case is not overturned on appeal. I'm not a Trump fan, but this case was absolutely politically motivated and more worth of a banana republic than the United States. It is a black mark on our history of justice in America. In my opinion, it makes Watergate look like a teenage prank.

Thoughts on NB at ~15% vs WB at ~80%? I'm primarily concerned about QOL, but obviously the pay raise with WB is a nice perk. I'm considering sitting WB reserve (roughly 2.5hrs from base) as there are virtually no WB flights that leave before noon or after 8pm. Biggest benefits I see as a NB FO is the ability to basically dictate my schedule. Biggest benefits to WB is more productive trips which equates to more time home or a relatively predictable reserve schedule, which would increase the attractiveness of sitting reserve at home.

Good to hear that this might be a mountain made from a mole hill.

Dude, I don't mean to be rude, but this is an elementary understanding of him and the war. Any claim that the Germans, the US Army, and the overwhelming consensus of historians are all wrong should be backed up by a few more facts. He did not have overwhelming material superiority for much of the Africa campaign, early in the campaign he was outnumbered and outgunned as often happens in an amphibious invasion. He did not have complete air control, eventual superiority yes, but supremacy was not achieved until late in the war. The Germans did have a fuel problem, but the fuel problem is vastly overstated in the initial parts of the African campaign. The real fuel problems started when we were able to bomb refineries, which didn't happen for a while. The physical assault motivation claim is absurd. Slapping one dude in a fit of rage can hardly be considered "his sole idea for motivating". I also said "in many regards". He had some crazy bad character flaws; he was vain to a absurd level, he saw war as his chance to gain glory, etc. Not to excuse those character flaws, but often the greater the man, the greater the flaws. Everything can get magnified when you have someone that is almost larger than life. As O Face said, the enemy's appreciation of a military leader is a great indication and the Germans feared him more than any other man. That alone should tell us what we need to know about his abilities. As for his role in WWI, making any comparisons between that and Afghanistan is absurd. WWI: 53,000 US combat fatalities in about 18 months, Afghanistan, less than 2,000 in roughly 20 years. Leaders in the world wars were promoted based on their actual capabilities on the battlefield far more than we have seen in the last 20 years. That's how we ended up with a basically all-star team by the end of WWII that out led and out thought the enemy and now we're talking about open ranks inspections while we are at serious risk of losing the next world war. I'm not some Patton fanboy, but his results speak for themselves. I'd rather be led by a dude that slaps a guy for not fighting than led by a dude that thinks some lint on your uniform is indicative of your military ability.

Sorry, should have been more specific, meant the story Danger41 talked about. I agree with that guy that will not be named at risk of his coming back to this board that the new 'standards' focus is dumb. It's like a E-9 from the height of the Died suddenly put on a bunch of stars. Que their favorite Patton quote of 'if you can't get them to wear their uniform right, then how can you get them to fight right' or something like that. Patton was a brilliant leader in many regards, but either this quote was made up (highly likely) or he had Biden moment. Patton was a serious history buff and clearly knew that uniforms were a relatively new invention in warfare, so clearly not something that was truly necessary to combat. Plus I doubt he would have ever passed a uniform inspection himself. Ivory handled pistols, a sash, swagger stick, and custom non-authorized pants were clearly not in reg. Just look at the Civil War and how the Rebels consistently had abysmal uniforms, far worse than the Union, yet man for man outfought the Union at pretty much every battle. Rebels were often shoe-less, in tattered pants and a jacket, maybe a hat maybe not, a beard that hasn't seen a razor in months, and hair to match, yet those same guys stood out in the open 40 yards from the enemy for multiple volleys perfectly following orders. Obviously there is no relation between fighting ability and uniform perfection, so why the newfound focus on uniforms? We must be doing so awesome in preparing for war with China that we can now focus on things that have zero impact on our ability to defend our nation.