nsplayr

Anyone else skeptical of this all actually taking place if we get a new SECDEF and POTUS potentially in 6 months? I’m also just blown away that so many of y’all are willing to throw NATO in the trash. We benefit greatly by a relatively peaceful and united Europe and part of the price of that is NATO and our encouragement of broader European integration, e.g. the EU. Not that institutions can’t or shouldn’t grow, change and evolve, but I for one am not willing to abandon a project that has been extremely fruitful for the last 70+ years.

It’s not a bet. My assessment is that the GOP is lowering the floor dangerously low on their opponent and that in general that’s not a great strategy. The Dems fell prey to this in 2016. Look, Biden and Trump are both slowed by age, just listen to each of them speaking in the 80s or 90s compared to today. I would greatly prefer younger candidates and office holders. IMHO there should be a maximum age for federal officer holders just like there is a minimum age. If I were king for a day I’d set the minimum age at 18 and the max age at probably 70. My point was Biden participated in 11 debates and numerous other public events and speeches during the primary and was judged to be adequate. He even won convincingly! So to say that this guy literally can’t put together two sentences is more than a stretch, it’s a gift to Biden when he gets in TV and does an acceptable job. No one expects soaring oratory from Joe Biden anyways, and now IMHO the right is setting the expectations so low that they become easy to exceed. Call it the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to quote an famous phrase from a man who also benefited from his competitors saying that he was an complete idiot.

I’m sorta ambivalent on $15 min wage. It would obviously help put money in the pockets of working people, which is very good for an economy driven by consumer demand. On the other hand large jumps all at once do cause problems. The Fed min wage, along with many many other government program payment numbers, should be pegged to chained-CPI or similar and then automatically raise or lower with inflation. If you don’t do that, inaction ends up being an affirmative choice to devalue current programs which is not what congress usually intends. See the pilot bonus and flight pay issues where they were the same from like 1990 - 2017 even though a lot of the value had been lost to inflation. In principle the AF didn’t value pilots any less, but in practice they absolutely did; same goes with all these other programs. If you had to hold my feet to the fire I’d say I support a higher fed min wage so long as we chain it to CPI from here in out so it doesn’t become an issue again in the future. Seems like the historical high water mark adjusted for inflation would be IVO $12 in today’s dollars so maybe that. Happy to post in good faith from the Dem POV...echo chambers don’t help any of us and I enjoy most of the perspectives here and in my squadron, which are more conservative and/or libertarian than my civ friends and family.

I mean if the weatherman says there’s a 15-20% chance of rain and it rains, do you never trust the weather again? Some folks were too certain of a Dem victory in 2016, but relatively low probability events do happen sometimes! The national polls were very accurate in 2016 and while some state polls got the absolute outcome wrong, there weren’t egregious misses in terms of what % wrong they were. I have no problems with Harris and am familiar with her background. GL trying to smear her, she is tough. WRT to Biden, I’m pretty impressed that y’all are making the same mistake we did last time with Trump. We set the expectations very very low and he didn’t clear them by much but he managed to keep it relatively together on the trail and in the debates, minus the grabbin’ em by the pussy audio. If y’all keep saying Biden has dementia and then he gets in TV and does fine, it’s gonna backfire. He just gave a speech I saw part of the other day and he did fine.

Seems like they’re a fundamental misunderstanding here. All the things you listed sound like fairly standard GOP policies boiled down to their most positive-sounding values statements. Which is fine...if you want better Republicans then vote for them in the primary! It’s not the job of the Democratic Party to “win over trump voters.” It’s their job to win elections and enact the policies they ran on, based on the values they personally believe in and the party in general supports. That can be accomplished without wining a single solitary person who voted for Trump in 2016, although obviously it’s easier if you peel away some small percentage of the people who did in key states. I have no expectations that most Republicans would be all that interested in higher taxes on the wealthy, addressing climate change in a robust way, etc. I’m not mad about that necessarily, I just don’t vote for them. So it’s silly to hate on the Dems for listening to the people who vote for them and supporting more liberal policies than you, a conservative, support. I’m happy to have a detailed discussion about policies that actually poll really well with a broad swath of the public...it’s a specific interest of mine to get the “low hanging fruit” things enacted rather than see the parties spend political capital on unpopular policies like reparations or building the wall or some of the other silliness that a minority of people agitate about. A quick list of examples that all poll >60% among US adults is: universal background checks, legalizing marijuana, letting people buy into a Medicare and Medicaid, a $15 minimum wage, and creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country.

Massive and total obstruction of all legislation, mass resignations of officials and coordinated worker strikes, violent street battles, staging a coup, etc. All kinds of stuff like that has take place in other democracies all around the world. Thankfully that’s not the case here.

What kinds of issues would you like Dem politicians to support?

Welcome to 2000! We didn’t know the winner until a SCOTUS ruling in December. To answer your question, yes. There’s one very famous person who very consistently sowed doubt about the legitimacy of the 2016 election before it took place, the legitimacy of the popular vote count after it took place, and the future legitimacy of the 2020 election, to include trial balloons about delaying it. That person is not a Democrat. Democrats are still mad about the electoral college granting the GOP two presidencies out of the last 5 elections when they didn’t receive the most votes, and many want to get rid of it, but that’s different that saying they, “(sic)...didn’t accept the election results.” Hillary and Pelosi et al were on the dais when Trump took the oath of office.

Only 2 of the people on Biden’s short list of 6-9 ran for President this cycle, and that seems about par for the course for nominees in the past. And as one of the forum’s few resident Democrats I guess I just don’t agree that the primary this year featured 17 robots + 1 socialist but 🤷‍♂️ ok. I think Kamala Harris will be picked and support that, but a former competitor for the top job actually hasn’t been selected for VP by either party since Edwards in 2004 so we’ll see. In terms of a post-Trump GOP, who knows, first things first...but I would watch Nikki Haley, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley in the top tier and I wouldn’t totally discount Pence either. A lot depends on what happens in Nov obviously, both the absolute outcome as well as the margin. If Trump wins, then moot. If he loses close I would expect more trumpiness from the next nominee. If he loses big I expect everyone in my top tier above to suddenly forget they ever knew the guy and pivot back to more typical GOP politics going forward.

Vote by mail almost always requires a signature match between the signature on the mailed in ballot with one on file. Read this about how the process works in Utah, a heavily Republican state that has successfully conducted all-mail elections for several cycles now, following in the footsteps of Washington and Oregon who have done so for decades.

I mean, feel free to believe whatever you want, but that’s exactly what the party did in most people’s minds. As of today, Biden is polling +8.3 in the RCP average, has pushed the tipping point state well outside the toss-up category, and is beating Clinton’s polling lead in both absolute terms as well as steadiness. He’s in the best position of any challenger since the advent of modern polling. Lots of time left and things change blah blah blah, but that’s the state of the race today and any honest person with any professional training in electoral politics and polling will tell you basically the same story. Biden’s policy vision is Democratic Party center-of-mass and he’s a very well known quantity both in the party and in DC. He’s not a radical socialist reformer, which was the other prominent option for the last 8 years, and his broad appeal both inside the Dem party and among independents is evident in his current large polling lead both nationally and in many more battleground states than are needed to win the election. I 100% agree he’s lost a step or two and personally I’m very ageist in my Presidential politics...Uncle Joe wasn’t anywhere near my first choice specifically due to age. Age 45-60 with experience in the Senate or as a Governor is ideal IMHO, with exceptions for compelling candidates on the margins of those criteria. Keep in mind that President Trump is also quite old and those living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones re: rambling, incoherent statements because that is kind of Trump’s shtick.

As a famous guy once said, the cure can’t be worse than the disease. In an effort to fight voter fraud, which does happen but at a very low level, many efforts at increased security end up disenfranchising orders of magnitude more citizens. Several states have run successful elections with 100% vote by mail for decades...broadening the scope of allowable absentee excuses to include COVID during a raging pandemic isn’t going to somehow sink the Republic. We should all expect that results will take longer than normal this year, and unless it’s a total blowout I would prepare to wait several days at a minimum to determine the Presidential winner, let alone all the state races, many of which may be very close as well.

There’s been a long discussion over what uniforms police in America should I wear and I fall strongly on the side of as civilianized and non-confrontational as possible while still allowing officers to carry all the gear they need and command the respect they deserve. @FLEA is spot on saying tension is cyclical and since we can’t control non-organized protesters, let’s do what we can with the folks we can control ie our LEOs and do what’s possible to de-escalate. At the same time let’s also have political and activist leaders call for de-escalation and non-violence as well. You can’t and shouldn’t expect to quell unrest in a democratic republic via crackdowns (eg “dominating the battle space”), it has to be mutual reductions in force and those who are in power and sworn officers of the law should take the lead. This is a good read on the subject: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-18/a-history-of-police-uniforms-and-why-they-matter I think everyone knows that wearing different clothes makes you feel different. It’s why you dress up for church and “sun’s out, guns out” at the beach and why I at least feel a specific type of aircrew pride throwing on the green bag. For me, it’s even more so in the bag than when wearing the multicam flight suit that IMHO makes us all look like we’re in the Army despite the advantages of the two-piece style while shitting or sweating. On active duty we were issued combat shirts at one point to pair with body armor and the multicam bottoms and boy did we feel like Billy Badasses despite no actual increase in combat lethality. SEALs of the sky indeed 😅 All that to say: police, even federal LEOs, should wear uniforms that look like civilian police uniforms, especially when patrolling American cities and towns. It actually matters in how the public perceives and treats them. And they should always be identifiable with specific department badges and individual badge or ID numbers if not names. If you’re an adviser in Iraq or raiding some cartel safe house on the border or SWAT, it’s a different situation obviously.

I know a couple of folks that liked it out there due to family situations (aging parents that lived in west Texas), and in every group there’s gonna be at least a few weirdos, but yes in general HRT > CVS in every measurable way as far as the location is concerned. YMMV with specific units and missions. I made the best of my brief time there and my unit was great, but that assignment did directly cause my separation from Active Duty...I 7-day opt’d but was sent anyways for approx 10 months 🙄 Water under the bridge but hey, it also led me to my new home in the Guard and the grass here is much, much greener. Amor Fati. I fully agree that shit locations are a drain (just ask the Army!) but if we’re being honest the AF can’t do anything about that. Congress controls the BRAC and Big Blue tried to get rid of Cannon before the NM delegation squashed that bright idea.

Two issues here: first, the federal LEOs in Portland, from what I understand, were not clearly identifying what agency they were with (BOP, US Marshals, ICE, etc.) nor did they have individual ID or badge numbers on their uniforms. This prevents any person interacting with them from lodging a complaint because it’s totally unclear who you would even call or how to describe one officer from another. If I am misunderstanding the details of what happened / is happening with that operation in Portland I’m open learning the truth. Second, policing your own citizens in the homeland is fundamentally different than military operations overseas and I’d rather error on the side of stringently upholding citizens civil liberties than on the side of OPSEC for the LEOs involved. I don’t find any valid reasons why an agency affiliation and individualized ID number violates the personal security of the LEOs out there doing difficult work nor would it hurt the overall OPSEC of their mission, which was crowd control and defense of facilities, not undercover work. Also not for nothing, as a member of the national guard, I 100% want the American people to very clearly understand when they are interacting with local or state LEOs, federal LEOs, or my fellow Guardsmen. All of those institutions have different missions and conflating them, especially in controversial and confrontational situations, only serves to drag down the trust in all of the institutions at once.

Hey @Guardian, a word of honest advice. You’re debating like a self-righteous dick and it’s likely turning some people off to potentially valid points that you make. Not being the IP here but rather simple peer-to-peer debriefing from the sortie. And trust me, I am an expert at arguing like a self-righteous dick. I did it here and elsewhere for many years. I’m not anywhere near perfect now, but am actively trying to be better and give more people the benefit of the doubt more often and engage in good faith whenever possible.

Ironically, the people in the McCloskey's neighborhood were marching against the Mayor of St. Louis because she had doxxed protesters. Full circle! Police need to be identifiable by at minimum a patch or other department insignia as well as an individualized badge or ID number for each officer. No need to provide their name necessarily in all circumstances, but normally I would expect someone to identify themselves as "Officer Johnson" or whatever when interacting with people. That being said doxxing is bad and no one should do it. If you don't have the above at a minimum, you have a completely unaccountable force with the licence to use violence. I'm also against police appearing in military-style uniforms because it conflates two very different government forces, one that are guardians in the homeland and one that are aggressors/defenders abroad. Even when the National Guard is used domestically, it's important for people to very clearly understand who is a member of the military and who is a local, state, or federal LEO. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/20/mark-hertling-police-portland/

Which inexplicably is every single direction.

Yea @Guardian I just don’t agree that your personal, maximalist version of “free speech” is the only version that counts. The United States has strong freedom of expression laws and cultural norms, but so do many other countries. You yourself said speech that is dangerous and false should not be protected, and the devil is 100% in those details. Some countries (Austria for instance) have said that it is “dangerous and false” to claim that the prophet Muhammad is a pedophile and made that speech illegal. Do I agree with that, not necessarily, but there is no one black and white definition here, as made obvious by numerous court cases and different legal opinions around the globe as to what’s permissible or not. re: Canadians going to jail for misusing pronouns, again, the person making the claim that seems outside of CW needs to provide the evidence. Here’s the #1 google search result from me looking. https://www.foxnews.com/world/not-real-news-no-jail-in-canada-for-misusing-gender-pronoun

I’ll raise you ~8.69 pilots per sortie, 1 engine, and 3 tails 💪🇺🇸😆 To the OP - leave out the stuff about CAS and just sat you wanna be a fighter pilot and support the guys on the ground. No shame in saying you’d rather fly manned and no need to really explain that. GL!

Then here it is directly: other countries have freedom of speech. A few other countries actually have greater personal freedoms, including speech, than the United States, although we rank highly overall. What is your evidence that there is not free speech in, say, New Zealand? How about Canada? The USA is great and I love it here but come on, you can’t just throw out a claim like you did with zero evidence. You are correct that Americans consistently rank #1 in terms of cultural acceptance of all speech, including hate speech. But to say there is no “freedom of speech” literally anywhere else is not true. No freedom is absolute and if you accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater to protect public safety, then you have to admit that there are limits. Defining what acceptable limits are vs which limits might infringe on people’s natural rights to express themselves is up for debate and each country handles that slightly differently as you would expect.

Scott’s bill seemed fine and if McConnell wants to bring it to committee or the floor he can. IMHO the Dem senators aren’t super interested in passing it because they think they will win the WH and Senate in ~3 months and can write and pass a better bill next Feb. Not an uncommon strategy. Meanwhile House Dems have their own police reform bill so I think it’s not accurate to say the party as a whole is unwilling to legislate on this issue just because they didn’t immediately jump on board with the opposing party’s first effort at it. Are House Republicans jumping on board Dem efforts in that chamber? No, they are not. Standard politics that stems from genuine philosophical differences and a desire to get more of what you want. I agree with you that reforming qualified immunity and potentially moving away from police unions would be a major aspect of policing reform. One thing to note is that police unions are HEAVILY in favor of the GOP, even more so that police officers as a group. If there is one type of union Democrats typically don’t support it would be police unions.

Are you sure about this?

Relevant video, especially since McInnes founded Vice in the 90s: I mean...that's being extremely generous based on the types of activities they do. I mean some of the Proud Boys chanted, "Jews will not replace us!" in Charlottesville so 🤷‍♂️ Not the type of dudes I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt to in the vein of, "Oh, we're reformed, etc. etc." after all the shit press from that event.

Don't attack strawmen like the media or "leakers." Can you defend what's going on? The Governor of Oregon, Mayor of Portland and local Sheriff are all telling federal LEOs to leave. The President confirms that federal LEOs are there at his direction. Cucinelli (acting deputy DHS) acknowledges that federal LEOs are using unmarked vehicles to snatch-and-grab suspects and that in at least one instance (the guy who's story is out there), they grabbed the wrong person. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland I an not libertarian, not even close. Many times I'm supportive of federal action that goes against the wishes of individual states in the name of having a unified national strategy to combat shared challenges. I am also generally supportive of law enforcement and tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those folks. So I'm asking folks who are more libertarian than me - can we agree that law enforcement officers dressed in multicam tac gear and without name tags or badges should not be driving around American cities in unmarked vehicles snatching people off the streets? Violent protests are bad and I don't support them. Portlanders, bless their hearts, are strange. But in trying to contain and eventually end protests that tend to get chaotic at night, let's not jump to supporting a wildly disproportionate escalation of force by law enforcement agencies that are not supported by any level of local officials in the area in question. I'm also 100% fine with killing Awlaki, yes, I've said that many times. I was there, literally trying to kill him personally if the opportunity presented itself. I'm also a card-carrying member of the ACLU but they were wrong to oppose his targeting and killing. Having seen some of the intelligence that was made available to us, he was unquestionably bad, dangerous, an imminent threat, and actively working to inspire more attacks against Americans. The fact that he was a US citizen who fled to Yemen where there was basically zero hope for arrest should not and did not shield him from justice. If AQAP were a foreign state actor and he as a AMCIT had joined up with them, we would be justified in killing him on a battlefield. AQAP being a non-state actor does add some gray area to the equation, but not much IMHO.