brabus

Greatest advice any new guy can read here.

Honest answer: I don’t think you have a realistic chance at ANG/AFRC fighters. Age, scores, 16 hrs of flight time, etc. Even if you maxed out scores and had hundreds of hours, your age is nearly a guaranteed deal breaker. If you were hired tomorrow, you wouldn’t show back up to the squadron until age 40…age 40 is very old to be a LT in a fighter squadron and starting at the bottom. Now account for your competition being nearly half your age with phenomenal apps, no kids or businesses to manage, etc. Lastly, UPT slots are in a drought for ANG for the next couple years-ish, so really you’d be 42-43 by the time you’re back at a squadron, and that’s still assuming you got hired in 1-2 years. Honestly I don’t think you’d enjoy that hypothetical life, even if you think you would at this moment in time. My advice is accept reality and do not burn your time/money rushing fighter units. Chase fun/exciting flying on the civ side. It’ll take some time to get there, but there is a lot of awesome flying out there that is exciting and challenging - don’t need a fighter to check those boxes. I cannot speak for heavy units, perhaps they are more open to someone in your position. If you have a strong desire to fly mil, then maybe go that route. Hopefully some heavy bros in the ANG/AFRC will chime in. I know none of this is what you want to hear, but it’s not helpful for someone to blow smoke up your ass.

@Sua Sponte That sounds like par for the course.

How many ex-wives did he have!

How did our society become so egregiously retarded? It’s insane.

No judgement, I just have never understood the thought process of volunteer for a shit deal because it’ll “guarantee” you something good on the back side.

Dang. Where was that?

Never understood AFPAK volunteers. Go do years of your life in a massive shit hole for a war that ended in failure (we all knew it would), all so you can be “guaranteed” a life-sucking job of command, complete waste of time school, and O-6 in this disaster of an organization. It’s like these people love non-stop kicks in the junk.

Ouch, that sucks. But at least you can forget about those days and go rip around in an RV!

@kaputt Hopefully you’re right! I don’t think it’s necessarily a high threat, just the only threat along those lines that would ever be plausible for a legacy at this point.

Racial milestones? Copy, AF leadership are a bunch of racist fucks.

Interesting, didn’t know that. The real issue potentially coming is legacies swallowing regionals - the fuck if some regional guy goes above me on the SL!

I wonder how they’re dealing with seniority…staple or integrate based on DOH or some other criteria? I hope I’m never in the middle of that kind of a potential shitshow.

LGS, Dead Air Sierra 5 Individual. Trusts are still taking way too long from what I hear. I stopped doing the trust route 2x NFA items ago.

Took 3 days to get a suppressor. New system is WAY better than the old. Now the ATF is only 3 days and $200 away from being in compliance with the constitution!

The oranges might be OK, but I’m not sure his balls are!

That is awesome!

Do you live in base? If not, 100% flush this idea. 6 days/mo seems fairly standard in AFRC for flying jobs. Even the guard is getting to/at that point, depending on unit.

Wow, those are some real turbo douches. Army officers though, doesn’t surprise me.

What? They think someone shouldn’t get retirement benefits if they hadn’t done X or experienced Y? That’s real?

Problem is that’s a false statement. It’s not hypothetical - the negative, unintended consequences of RCV actually have happened. Read this: Maine Policy. Highlights on their study (not just Maine, but other elections): - 11% of ballots are exhausted on average - Eventual winner has a “false majority” 61% of the time - The basic point that a vast majority of voters barely understand the policies or ideologies of 2 candidates in a plurality election, but magically they’re going to understand that for 6-9+ candidates and rank them accordingly? You’re high if you believe that. The first two are the major non-starters for me. It’s not a bad idea on the surface, but there are too many negative, unintended consequences for me to support it. I understand you’re not going to change your mind, and that’s cool. I do understand the points you’re trying to make, but unless there’s a way to fix the two major problems as I see them, RCV is not something I will get on board with.

Invalid statement. Desantis had a massive plurality, and if all the the voters who had originally not put him in their ranked choices been allowed to re-vote for just Desantis vs. Trump, they likely vote Desantis because they detest Trump and won’t vote for him out of principle (but that’s not an option, so their ballots are shredded and they have zero say). Here’s the bottom line, you’re OK with a candidate clearly beating everyone, yet failing to achieve 50%, and then a different person ultimately winning the election in round 15 of vote tabulations. Cool, I’m not. And none of this is to say I think our voting system is smooth sailing, just that I think there are too many pitfalls in RCV for it to be the best solution. Then you didn’t read what I wrote. It wasn’t a direct comparison, it was highlighting how RCV is another way you end up in a similar position as the Dem party has currently, albeit via very different ways.

I did. The point is the guy made it in the first place, which would have never happened in a “normal” system, even with people dropping out. GOP primary example: I RCV Desantis, Vivek, Trump. Of total votes, Desantis gets 49.5%, Trump 30%, Vivek 20.5%. Thank God, we have Desantis as the nominee! Oh wait, he didn’t get 50%, so now we have to do a runoff and Vivek is out. Now we end up with Trump because he bests Desantis in the 1v1 runoff. Desantis won a massive plurality in the first round, but doesn’t matter, and now I got my 3rd choice when my first choice “won” (in a standard election) the first go at it. We have now watched someone win who objectively did not have the most support amongst primary voters and many votes did not count in the end (e.g. someone who went Vivek, Scott, Haley). That’s bullshit in my opinion. While not RCV, look at how Kamala is the dem nominee with zero votes. Not one person gave her a primary vote. It’s not the same, but RCV promotes a similar issue: you end up with people like Kamala making it when there were overall better candidates who were more liked, but because of a severely imperfect system, they’re out and she’s in.

I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement, I just don’t think RCV is the solution.

It’s retarded because you end up with a lot of votes not counting (e.g. “exhausted ballots”) and you end up with a too high of risk of people weaseling their way into victory when they would have had no chance in a traditional primary to general election system. I’m a fan of every vote counts and I’m not a fan of a person getting elected who a plurality of the voters did not want. Here’s a humorous Op Ed regarding AK’s RCV and how that’s working out…cliff notes: a dude who got 621 votes (out of 108,407 cast) is going to the general election on the Dem ticket as one of the “top 4” from the primary. Now I don’t think it’ll work out for him for multiple reasons, but it does showcase the absurd outcomes that occur with RCV.