Jump to content

brabus

Supreme User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,066

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    184

 Content Type 

Everything posted by brabus

  1. brabus

    Gun Talk

    brabus replied to VL-16's topic in Squadron Bar

    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!
  2. brabus
    The oranges might be OK, but I’m not sure his balls are!
  3. brabus
    That is awesome!
  4. brabus
    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.
  5. brabus
    Wow, those are some real turbo douches. Army officers though, doesn’t surprise me.
  6. brabus
    What? They think someone shouldn’t get retirement benefits if they hadn’t done X or experienced Y? That’s real?
  7. brabus
    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.
  8. brabus
    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.
  9. brabus
    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.
  10. brabus
    I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement, I just don’t think RCV is the solution.
  11. brabus
    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.
  12. brabus
    No it would not. RCV is another “magical unicorn and rainbows!” sales pitch that may sound great at first contact before any scrutiny. See Article 1. Here’s an excerpt from a Columbia professor’s article: ”So how could any decent, intelligent person not support IRV? One answer is that situations can arise in which IRV results are clearly unreasonable. For starters, what would you think of a system that chose C as the winner in a 3-candidate race where majorities of the voters expressed a preference for A over B and for A over C? In the IRV election of Example 3 below, this is precisely what happens! Example 3. 4 CAB 4 CB 3 BAC ----------> 3 BC ----> C wins 2 ACB drop A 2 CB In the first round, A is eliminated. C, second choice of A supporters, gets 2 more votes in round-2 and therefore beats B 6-3. But notice that 6 of the 9 voters placed A ahead of B and 5 voters placed A ahead of C. So, altho A would have beaten both rivals in 2-candidate elections, C comes out on top in this 3-candidate race. Putting it another way, if there had been a 2-candidate election between A and C, A would have won, but the entry of B into the race mysteriously makes C the winner. Not good!” That’s just one example of many. I too thought it sounded good at first hearing, until I did my own research.
  13. brabus
    Kamala can’t articulate a single policy - she beats trump by a landslide on word salads and platitudes. I agree with you trump (and many politicians) just say words/“catch phrases” and don’t articulate policy well, but Kamala is way worse than Trump in that sense. So I don’t think that’s the thing that’s going to sink him, at least for any voter who doesn’t already have their head planted up the DNC’s ass.
  14. brabus
    In MN while Walz was gov, 8 babies survived failed abortions. 3 were given “comfort care” to die “comfortably” and 5 were just left aside until dead. No, someone didn’t point a gun at them, but they might as well have. GOP has tried to pass legislation to require live saving care in these events, but the Dems have shot those attempts down. Trump chose his words poorly, but his point is not “insane,” as it’s fact that babies have been left to die after failed abortions.
  15. brabus
    A few adds: - Stronger foreign policy than Biden/Harris…there weren’t new wars for us, Abraham Accords, didn’t lead a historically epic failure of a withdrawal like Biden/Harris did… - His fiscal policies are light years better than Harris’ proposal. Inflation is the worst under Biden/Harris since the late 70s/early 80s (and 2.2x the cumulative inflation vs. Trump’s first term). Harris’ proposal to tax unrealized gains alone shows she doesn’t even have a 3rd grade level understanding of economics. - Actually attempted to do something about the southern border vs. Harris literally do nothing for 3.5 years, despite even being officially put in charge of that exact problem. - Worked to bring more power back to the state level as intended by our founding fathers and documents @SpeedOfHeat Bottom line, many policies. The fact you don’t think he has policies demonstrates how you are so hell bent on emotional outrage/“go my team” minded you’re incapable of having unemotional, logical thought WRT politics, economics, etc.
  16. brabus
    The Dem lead gov is on par with PRC/RUS/NK/IRA when it comes to corruption and censorship. They are doing things that they would condemn and sanction those other countries for doing. I’m not saying the GOP is the total opposite or all that is good, as this isn’t a zero sum game. But for fuck’s sake, it is incredibly mind blowing to see Americans, especially “smart on paper” Americans, go right along with the bullshit. I get the anti-Trump mindset, but the Dems have lost complete control to the far left and incredibly evil people - a smart person sees the collapse and pivots away to solve the problem, not just go along because “Orange man bad.” Also, since I like to provide solutions after calling out problems - here you go: suck up 4 years, and in that time build up a moderate candidate who tells the progressives and elites to fuck off (just as a GOP candidate should tell far right and elites to fuck off), supports the constitution, understands basic financial math, but can still champion and push for liberal policies on abortion, immigration reform, the homeless problem, healthcare, etc. We can find middle ground again, but it can’t happen until half of American voters unplug their brains from the matrix and stop supporting radical, anti-American behavior and policies (and I mean the radical, anti-constitutional stuff, not directed at topics like abortion, for example).
  17. brabus
    10 hrs straight in a helo - ouch. Nice work to all involved.
  18. brabus
    It’s accurate, and a good point. Timing and luck matter - fighter UPT slots are probable scarce for the next couple years at least. It’ll swing back, but who knows how long it’ll be.
  19. brabus
    Based on age and the amount of effort you’ve put in without an interview, I don’t think enlisting is going to move the needle at all. Find a job you truly want to do in the ANG and go for that, but do not take a job because you think it’ll get you a pilot slot. I understand completely the desire for mission and something greater - go find that kickass E job and run with it for as long as you still enjoy it.
  20. brabus
    Clickbait - 100% on the PIC. I’ve let many “unqualified” people fly an F-16, would have been 100% my fault if they had done something that resulted in a class ____.
  21. brabus
    Several ARTs I know have tried and failed. The only way a couple of them were able to succeed was quit your ART job, get re-hired into another ART job a couple months later, then you can sign up for the $30k bonus. Obviously a few stars have to align to make all that happen.
  22. brabus
    Not shocking. Corporate cubicle farms can be huge, and with a big company I doubt it was even a blip on the radar when she didn’t scan out.
  23. brabus
    No. Sounds like we’re from different corners of the AF; once every 2 weeks flying sounds terrible, I’ll l give you that. But that is not what’s killing the AF. It’s all the other bullshit in conjunction with dickless leadership who doesn’t give a fuck about winning. Enough of that horseshit makes a guy move on. Period.
  24. brabus
    Sure more hours would be nice, but that doesn’t fix the pilot bail rate. It’s not lack of flying hours that’s pushing guys out the door.
  25. brabus
    I have seen more than one guy get FEB'd for non-flying related actions. It sounds like whatever you did to receive an LOR is bad enough they don't want you flying, and that's their prerogative. Really do some introspection here and determine if this is something worth spending a ton of money and stress on. It's very possible you really fucked up something in life/officership, and if that's the case, I'm not saying incriminate yourself further or not lawyer up, but also I wouldn't burn yourself out and drain your bank account to fight a losing battle. If this hypothetical is hitting close to home, then learn from the past, do what you need to improve, and move forward on a new path in life...flying is not everything, despite what we all think in our 20s.
×
×
  • Create New...