The Next President is...

[Negatory]

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - 1984

 

[Herkdrvr]

On 8/16/2024 at 6:38 PM, bfargin said:

The VP isn't in the military chain of command, so why are generals who meet her saluting? Has this changed since I was in 30 plus years ago.

 

To be honest, I don't remember ever seeing a VP being greeted/disembarking before, but it just looked odd when I saw it earlier this week on one of her trips and the general saluted and she saluted back.

Not sure about 30 years ago, but the (AF) regulations say you're supposed to salute the POTUS & VPOTUS, among others.

[SHFP]

So the big "October Surprise"...Biden pardons his son, steps down, and Harris becomes President...thus helping to insure her being elected.  Probably all planned months ago by the DNC and the Democratic Cabal.  Hey, tac airlifter...you and me betting again?   

[M2]

12 hours ago, Herkdrvr said:

Not sure about 30 years ago, but the (AF) regulations say you're supposed to salute the POTUS & VPOTUS, among others.

Nope.  "There is no requirement that military personnel salute the vice president, who has no active role in the chain of command," Eric Fleury, an assistant professor of government and international relations at Connecticut College said in an email. "The only civilian requiring a salute is the President, which he or she is not obliged to return."

Reagan started the tradition of returning the salute by presidents.  On Oct. 12, 1986, he delivered remarks to U.S. service members and their families in Keflavik, Iceland, and explained why he decided to start returning salutes to military troops.  "One night over at the Commandant's quarters, Marine Commandant's quarters in Washington, and I was getting a couple of highballs, and I didn't – [laughter] – know what to do with them. So, I said to the Commandant – I said, 'Look, I know all the rules about saluting in civilian clothes and all, but if I am the Commander in Chief, there ought to be a regulation that would permit me to return a salute,'" he said, according to a transcript from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. 

Fact check: Claims that Kamala Harris refused salute missing context (usatoday.com)

 

[Day Man]

1.8. Customs and Courtesies. Our customs and courtesies reflect the unique nature of our profession and guide significant aspects of our behavior. We emphasize our strong bond with other military members, as well as our mutual respect for one another and our civilian leadership. See AFI 34-1201, Protocol; Air Force Pamphlet (AFPAM) 34-1202, Guide to Protocol. 1.8.1. Saluting. Saluting is a courtesy exchanged between members of the uniformed Services as both a greeting and a symbol of mutual respect. The basic rules regarding saluting are:

1.8.1.1. Airmen salute the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Department Secretaries, all superior commissioned and warrant officers, all Medal of Honor recipients, and superior officers of friendly foreign nations.

 

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cc/publication/afi1-1/afi1-1.pdf

[M2]

4 minutes ago, Day Man said:

1.8. Customs and Courtesies. Our customs and courtesies reflect the unique nature of our profession and guide significant aspects of our behavior. We emphasize our strong bond with other military members, as well as our mutual respect for one another and our civilian leadership. See AFI 34-1201, Protocol; Air Force Pamphlet (AFPAM) 34-1202, Guide to Protocol. 1.8.1. Saluting. Saluting is a courtesy exchanged between members of the uniformed Services as both a greeting and a symbol of mutual respect. The basic rules regarding saluting are:

1.8.1.1. Airmen salute the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Department Secretaries, all superior commissioned and warrant officers, all Medal of Honor recipients, and superior officers of friendly foreign nations.

 

https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cc/publication/afi1-1/afi1-1.pdf

DAFMAN 90-161 defines directive publications as “Publications to which adherence is mandatory. These publications implement mandatory guidance for publication users and deviation is not permitted without a waiver."

Pamphlets (e.g. DAFPAM, AFPAM or SPFPAM) are non-directive.

AF Publication Reduction (AFPR) Phase 3: Problem Statement Workshop

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, M2 said:

DAFMAN 90-161 defines directive publications as “Publications to which adherence is mandatory. These publications implement mandatory guidance for publication users and deviation is not permitted without a waiver."

Pamphlets (e.g. DAFPAM, AFPAM or SPFPAM) are non-directive.

AF Publication Reduction (AFPR) Phase 3: Problem Statement Workshop

🤨 the verbiage to salute the VP is referenced directly in the AFI, not any pamphlet

[Ebony zer]

I bet a guy in my unit at the beginning of the year that the DNC would wait until after the RNC convention to replace Biden. My logic was that Trump in the polls would lose to any other democrat. If Biden would have said he wasn't running last year, there's a chance that republican voters would have chosen another candidate. With Trump being competitive in the polls against Biden, he easily secured the nomination. I did however also think that the replacement was going to be Michelle Obama, however Harris worked to quickly in securing the nomination and prevented any challengers. 

[bfargin]

I was kind of expecting Big Mike (BM) too. Kamala is similar to BM in her ideology, but is willing to bow/submit to any authority and do exactly what the DNC dictates. So in that sense, she is more controllable which is why she was chosen. 

I think BM would have been an automatic shoe in. Kamala is so bad the Rs, even with trump, have a 50/50 shot. The next 4 years are going to be interesting regardless of who is POTUS.

[dream big]

8 hours ago, bfargin said:

I was kind of expecting Big Mike (BM) too. Kamala is similar to BM in her ideology, but is willing to bow/submit to any authority and do exactly what the DNC dictates. So in that sense, she is more controllable which is why she was chosen. 

I think BM would have been an automatic shoe in. Kamala is so bad the Rs, even with trump, have a 50/50 shot. The next 4 years are going to be interesting regardless of who is POTUS.

If it’s anything like 2016-2020 sign me up twice. 

[SurelySerious]

I, for one, am looking forward to Harris implementing all of Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s top economic policies.

/s

[ClearedHot]

[M2]

One of these is Neil from the 1980s Brit comedy classic, The Young Ones!

Not sure what the other is?

[ClearedHot]

Honeymoon may be coming to an end...the day before her speech at the DNC convention where she will role out epic spending in what is being called Bidenomics 2.0, the Labor Department revises job creation DOWN by 800,000.  At the same time CBP announces they have lost track of 32,000 unaccompanied minors! 

[SurelySerious]

Honeymoon may be coming to an end...the day before her speech at the DNC convention where she will role out epic spending in what is being called Bidenomics 2.0, the Labor Department revises job creation DOWN by 800,000.  At the same time CBP announces they have lost track of 32,000 unaccompanied minors! 

She’s going to fix the economy!

That she’s been a part of for four years.

[Pooter]

32 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Honeymoon may be coming to an end...the day before her speech at the DNC convention where she will role out epic spending in what is being called Bidenomics 2.0, the Labor Department revises job creation DOWN by 800,000.  At the same time CBP announces they have lost track of 32,000 unaccompanied minors! 

The right could probably take advantage of these crap numbers if they were running anyone other than the current ticket.. 

But instead we have trump floating insane race-based attacks reminiscent of the Obama birther conspiracies, while Vance sticks his foot in his mouth over abortion on an hourly basis. 

[Smokin]

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.

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, Smokin said:

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.

If he is going to ramble he should just stand at the podium and say...Border!....Inflation!....Economy!

[Pooter]

3 hours ago, Smokin said:

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.

Dude abortion is a 70/30 issue these days. If it’s intentional then he’s intentionally being an idiot. The right wing religious types skew older and generally turn up in good numbers to vote anyway. Going hard on abortion buys you absolutely nothing. 

The people he’s firing up and driving to vote are on the left because he keeps handing talking points and OBGYN horror stories to the Dems on a velvet pillow. 

Outrage over the abortion issue already neutered the red wave that was supposed to happen in 2022, how many times do these guys have to lose to figure out it might be time to change strategy

[kaputt]

I don’t understand why the Republican Party always caters so much to the religious sect of the party. That group of people have proven since 2016 that they will overwhelmingly vote for the least religious person you could probably have as a candidate. 
 

So why are they wasting time throwing scraps to people who will vote for them anyway, when those same scraps will turn off moderates who would otherwise maybe consider voting republican?

[Pooter]

18 minutes ago, kaputt said:

I don’t understand why the Republican Party always caters so much to the religious sect of the party. That group of people have proven since 2016 that they will overwhelmingly vote for the least religious person you could probably have as a candidate. 
 

So why are they wasting time throwing scraps to people who will vote for them anyway, when those same scraps will turn off moderates who would otherwise maybe consider voting republican?

Exactly

[Ebony zer]

1 hour ago, Pooter said:

Dude abortion is a 70/30 issue these days. If it’s intentional then he’s intentionally being an idiot. The right wing religious types skew older and generally turn up in good numbers to vote anyway. Going hard on abortion buys you absolutely nothing. 

The people he’s firing up and driving to vote are on the left because he keeps handing talking points and OBGYN horror stories to the Dems on a velvet pillow. 

Outrage over the abortion issue already neutered the red wave that was supposed to happen in 2022, how many times do these guys have to lose to figure out it might be time to change strategy

In September of 2022, Lindsey Graham introduced a Federal Abortion Bill. I remember thinking to myself, why would you introduce this bill 6 weeks before the election knowing it will fire up the democrat base way more than the likely republican voters. 

[O Face]

This checks…Some of you should explain to the rest of us what it’s like to live your life unencumbered by the weight of testicles.

[tac airlifter]

 

[HeloDude]

Right now I give the election a 50/50 toss up.  That all being said, if Kamala wins, then the economic pain that continues/gets worse is owned by those who voted for her.  The people who will be screwed the most are the low and mids of the middle class.  By definition I’m in the upper class and while I will continue to be annoyed with the sticker shock when I go to the grocery store of Walgreens, it won’t affect my life much.  But for the others I mentioned…those who are trying to improve their lives by making good decisions, they’ll have to continue to make touch choices when it comes to their budget.

To be fair, I don’t think that Trump would be some miracle cure to the economy since we as a country have lost our ways economically, and both political parties have F’d it up.  But I’ll vote for the guy who wants less regulation and is pro-business any day over someone who is desiring price controls.