nsplayr

I was not thankfully, saw the video also.

I still can’t believe that we’re able to pull out of that maneuver and make it back alive.

For anyone who has multiple sets of wings...is it just me or is there just no possible way to fit a second set on the OCP flight suit? It just seems weird, I have double wings on my leather coat name tag, my green bag name tag, my service dress jacket, and on my now defunct ABUs. Anyone cracked this nut or should I just give up?

We do not fly night overheads in the MQ-9, so I’m not quite sure what you’re referencing /sarcasm 😆

I did a custom 1911 buy with a group of guys in May 2019. Worked with a retired 5th SFG guy / gunsmith here in Tennessee. He did a great job, let me know if you want his contact info...not sure where you’re located.

Sounds like Parmer County, TX near Clovistan. Both my wife and I managed to get tickets there. Highway speed limit drops from 80 to maybe 55 way outside whatever little collection of 3 buildings passes for a town there. I swear 95% of the town’s budget must come from speeding tickets from CVS personnel. F that place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/american-airlines-to-cut-service-to-15-cities-once-terms-on-billions-in-pandemic-aid-expire/2020/08/20/8701d21a-e2f2-11ea-8dd2-d07812bf00f7_story.html AA cutting service to 15 cities starting in October, including lovely Hell Rio, TX. I feel bad for all the poor bastards out in Laughlin who now can’t even escape easily.

There will not be “mass mail voting” if you mean ballots being mailed to every voter in a state. That type of voting system, which is legal and so far effective, will take place in I think 9 states, and 5 of those have done so previously, some for decades. And the systems are basically set now; no state that I know of is making any more significant changes other than NY that has a bill passed through their legislature but not yet signed into law. Absentee voting, which the President seems to like and does personally, will be much more prevalent this year due to the pandemic. But that’s ok, right? Trump likes it, Democrats like it, it was passed into law or authorized in both red and blue states, by legislatures and by Secretaries of State from both parties. The President is encouraging his supporters in battleground states to vote via absentee ballot...and that’s great! People should absolutely take advantage of that option. So...what are we fighting about? Like @Homestar said, let’s fund the post office appropriately, which I agree Congress has failed to do for years. They hamstring the service by controlling its operations and then complain that it “loses money” and doesn’t work well.

First, this exact thing is done in several states and has been done successfully for decades. Second, few new states are conducting all-mail elections in 2020. Most are using existing absentee voting systems, which the President likes and personally utilizes, to allow more people to vote via absentee ballot given the raging pandemic. Four new states are doing all-mail elections this year, and only one (Nevada) is even remotely a battleground state. So you’re in luck! The thing you are against isn’t happening almost anywhere meaningful in terms if who becomes the next President. Some states are mailing absentee ballot applications to voters or allowing more groups to assist voters in obtaining absentee applications, which again, is different than all-mail voting. The President seems ok with this too, or at least his campaign is...see this example of Trump campaign materials from North Carolina, which includes an absentee ballot request form.

It’s weird how new information coming to light will do that!

The President is vehemently opposed to additional funding for the USPS, and his recently appointed Postmaster General has slowed service, taken sorting machines offline, and already warned nearly every state that delivery of ballots will likely be delayed for the November general election. When asked why he opposed the funding, Trump said, “They want three and a half billion dollars for something that'll turn out to be fraudulent, that's election money basically. They want three and a half billion dollars for the mail-in votes. Universal mail-in ballots. They want $25 billion, billion, for the Post Office. Now they need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. But if they don't get those two items that means you can't have universal mail-in voting because you they're not equipped to have it.” So it’s not a conspiracy theory to say Trump opposes voters having access to absentee ballots and vote-by-mail, and is both rejecting money the USPS has requested and is actively doing what he can to hamstring the service already. Only a few states conduct elections entirely by mail, most changes for 2020 revolve around allowing more voters to resist absentee ballots, either with no excise required or by allowing fears of contracting COVID as a valid excuse. Meanwhile he and Melania voted via absentee ballot in the Florida Republican primary so...🤷‍♂️ The USPS is literally in the constitution and has the highest approval rating of any government institution. Voting by mail doesn’t really favor either party, and several states that have run all-mail elections for years, including ones that elect lots of Democrats (Oregon) and ones that elect lots of Republicans (Utah). We’re fighting about the dumbest things imaginable at this point 🤦‍♂️

Just put MQ-9s #1...you can actually fly your airplane from inside the vault! You never have to / get to leave! /sarcasm Real advice: Talk to more IPs - actively seek out ones that fly the things you're unclear about DM specific people here if you know their backgrounds, and overall... Pick the mission you think sounds the coolest Lifestyle-wise, you'll honestly have no idea and will be basing any perceived preferences on what one guy/gal told you at the bar sometime which is a terrible way to make life decisions. Then... Bloom wherever you're planted To my advice above, I'm happy to talk U-28s with you via DM if you'd like. Good luck!

VPs rarely ever deliver states anymore, the effect is very small. Indiana was going for the Republican nominee in 2016 no matter what (although it was a surprise in the Obama 2008 coalition). Ironically California (Harris) balances Delaware (Biden) quite well in terms of geographic spread which is sometimes desirable. Harris is the first member of the most populous state in the nation on either party’s ticket since Reagan 40 years ago! Harris balances Biden most importantly in age and identify, both of which are important in the Democratic Party. She’s also a credible President on day 1, as was Pence, which IMHO is the very most important criteria for a VP. On age, Biden (and Trump! and Hillary!) are all IMHO too old to be a President who could win and govern through two terms with all their marbles intact. Not everyone believes that but I do at least. 45-65 is my strike zone for a President or other high level leader and ideally they’d all be done and retire by age 70, i.e. don’t run for a first term if you’re already over age 62. Biden is 77 and Harris is 55 and she’s already been in the Senate since 2017 after working her way though other high-level state offices - good balance. In terms of identity, the Democratic Party still has a lot of white male leaders while white males are a minority of typical party voters, so it was important in a big-picture sense to have more leaders who are women, people of color, or both. It’s not about “racism” or “sexism,” but representation and making an effort to have our party leadership look like the party membership. Stating the obvious, she is a she, she’s black and Indian, and the daughter of two immigrants. He is a he, white, and of longer American-born lineage - good balance.

The critique on criminal justice is typically from the left. “They supported policies that locked up too many people for too long and didn’t vigorously investigate bad cops.” I don’t disagree with that critique but don’t find it disqualifying either especially given their current stances when compared with what they supported previously. So if you are more conservative than the left wing of the Democratic Party, ie moderates compared to the nation as a whole, I think that the Biden/Harris history of being “tough on crime” might even be a strength rather than a liability. IMHO it will be challenging for the GOP to at the same time critique Biden/Harris for being too harsh on crime while at the same time supporting policies that are even harsher. Caricatures work best when there is a kernel of truth, and there’s not really a kernel of truth in saying Biden/Harris are leaders of some liberal ANTIFA mob when they’re an old white guy who wrote the 90s crime bill and a former DA and AG. My original point was that at no time were Biden or Harris really outside they mainstream of national views on criminal justice, even if their “tough on crime” stances from, say, the 90s, but them at odds with where the Democratic Party in particular is today. The Dem Party, Biden/Harris, and to a lesser extent America as a whole have evolved a bit toward wanting less-harsh criminal justice measures applied, especially to low-level non-violent drug offenders, eg the pair have moved their positions along with public opinion rather than remaining strict ideologues. The most I can say about Biden/Harris is that I enthusiastically support their vision for the country going forward and I think they will do an excellent job governing. Biden was not my first choice for the top of the ticket but he’s the right person for this moment. My critiques of him are mostly centered on his age and some really bad calls on foreign policy in the past. That being said he’s perfectly acceptable as the leader of the party and would is a credible and plausible President. After Biden won the primary convincingly over several folks I liked better, Harris was my top VP choice to pair with him. I’m 100% happy with her being selected and think she’ll make a good VP and I’m assuming strong nominee for President in 2024.

Can you elaborate?

The “Kamala is too tough on crime” argument is gonna be hard to make while simultaneously claiming the Dems hate cops and want chaos in the street. I agree that tough-on-crime policies have failed a lot of people for a long time, and am glad I have some folks on the right that might agree. That being said, I don’t think Harris was particularly bad as a DA or AG, just like Biden wasn’t particularly bad as a Senator on these issues. Some on the left in particular will vehemently disagree. I saw they were both products of the time, and I care more about what they will do now and when in power in the next administration than the ins and outs of what policy they supported 40, 20, or even 10 years ago.

I know you meant this snidely, but Biden picked Harris. Good choice IMHO, she was my fav of the people Biden apparently had on his shortlist. Smart, tough debater, good campaigner, previously vetted, current holder of high office, the proper age to balance the ticket.

Another kick in the Jimmy for morale, lovely. Because who doesn’t want more unaccompanied 365s! With Afghanistan finally wound down and other wartime commitments waning there was about to be an acute shortage of shitty deals to hand out.

I always took that to mean “pizza time” 😆🍕

Some valid points here although Greece and Turkey have both been members since 1952 so we seem to have that mostly figured out although craniums up w/ Erdogan as the new Sultan-for-life. In general I still strongly believe that alliances make us stronger; even accounting for when we have some back-stabbing allies like Saudi or Turkey that at times pursue agendas or allow problems to fester that are supremely unhelpful to our goals. I agree that NATO needed a new purpose after the Cold War ended, but I would argue that Russia is fully back as a major threat to western liberal democracy in terms of ideological and global power competition, and China is an even bigger competitor in that space. Frankly the US could use a better unified NATO, including all the periphery states in eastern and Southern Europe, to join with us and stand against non-democratic, non- or state/crony-capitalist, anti-human rights regimes that are out there actively wielding both hard and soft power across the globe. If you like voting and freedoms and individual rights, a strong US-led alliance like NATO should be the champion of that world-view. Sounds like a great purpose to me and the U.S. can achieve better results at driving the alliance toward that with cooperative leadership rather than poke-em-in-the-eye transactional squabbling and “America First.”

I’m curious what y’all wanted to see in this case re: due process. Awlaki openly admitted to doing the things he was accused of. Do you think a trial where he was not present and where he almost 100% certainly would have been found guilty would have helped him or anyone else when he bought a hellfire afterwords? Even if you are sentenced to death, that’s not how the system works. Fun fact, I don’t support the death penalty but am still ok with killing enemies on the battlefield, which is what I considered Awlaki to be. He could have surrendered at any time and been given a trial (at GITMO probably although I support trying and jailing terrorists actually on proper US territory). I also get that it’s tricky to define what’s the “battlefield” now but IDK man, I and many others sure did a bunch of deploying to the region and flying over said country for it not to have been a battlefield 🧐 U.S. boots were on that ground in offensive operations in concert with the local government in addition to all the airpower present. The slippery slope is when you can declare anyone hostile and anywhere a battlefield; copy. If President Trump, who I don’t support, were faced with the same situation and made the same call that Obama did, I’d back him knowing the details of this specific case.

I love how we keep going around the horn on this one! Anwar al-Awlaki was an active combatant, was escorted by armed guards to meetings with other high-level AQAP operational commanders, and was both inspiring and directing attacks both in Yemen and abroad. The Yemeni government had approved overflight of Yemen as well as kinetic operation to target AQAP members. This wasn't some secret-squirrel "poison him with a radioactive umbrella on the streets of London" operation. It was a military operation against a military target in an active combat theater in partnership with the local government. The only gray area was that he was a wanted U.S. citizen who had fled justice and the determination had to be made that he could not be captured, which would have been preferable. His son was unintended CIVCAS on a seperate strike that targeted a building. Targeting buildings is always inherently dangerous for this exact reason, you don't know exactly what's inside. The targets of that building strike were legal targets. All of this is available open source, however if your critiques of the process of SOF HVI manhunting come only from open source I would encourage you to read up more deeply on what you can and then trust that your fellow servicemembers in that particular line of work are just as professional as you are at flying the mission of your platform. I don't know fuck-all about OCA or SEAD or refueling, etc. beyond the surface-level expected of a fellow airman, and you won't find me critiquing those processes nearly as sharply as you will of ones I know more about. Except if you land a C-17 at the wrong airport, then all the spears are fair game 🍺 If I'm not being clear, it's pretty insulting that you think that we as professional officers/NCOs just go out and pull the trigger on a U.S. citizen based on the political whims of the President. That's not how this works...that's not how any of this works. Edit to add: All that said, I'm probably more skeptical than it might appear of the value of HVI hunting and airstrikes as a broadly-used tool in the foreign policy playbook, even as I continue to serve doing the same mission set today. There's a ton of nuance on what good policy looks like, but I'm just fed up with the hand wringing and armchair QBing of this particular strike years and years after the fact.

What Flea is saying above is all accurate. What I think is missing in a lot of the critiques is that NATO is a military alliance but also a political alliance. I think a lot of y’all are discounting the value of being closely allied with many of the worlds largest economies and most enduring democratic states. There is, in my view, a lot of value beyond the petty, transactional nature of “who paid for what” and there are also far better ways to encourage our allies to spend more on defense without poking them in the eyes constantly. For people asking why the F NATO was in Afghanistan, it was us that invoked Article 5 after 9/11 and the way I see it our boys rode with us when it was time to F some terrorists up. The fact that the Afghan War turned into an extremely drawn out and ultimately pointless (IMHO) land war in Asia from about 2003-present is kind of on us as the leaders of that posse. NATO also includes 3 of the 9 world nuclear powers are for whatever that’s worth when the aliens invade 🛸

I think he only made the ballot in a single state, and he and his wife are open about how he is bipolar. Hopefully you're not serious and/or you live in Oklahoma because otherwise that's not an option. Donald Trump or Joe Biden will be the next President of the United States so despite their flaws I'd recommend voting for whoever you think is best between those two.

I agree that audiences are terrible and that there should be debates. My fav ones are where they sit and have a more policy-focused discussion although there is some room for a town-hall setting in a non-pandemic year. I don’t like standing behind podiums slinging insults for audience cheers.