slackline

Loved that story, and agree wholeheartedly with your points.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/04/politics/trump-nominee-pentagon-martial-law/index.html Scott O'Grady didn't come off as a tinfoil-hat kinda guy when I met him, but this is sad.

Great idea. Thanks!

Yeah, I wouldn't be too worried if I were at Ramstein, which will be closest to be via a plane ride, but I guess I'll figure it out. In about 6 months, when I get there, I'll post up some answers to questions I ask in case anyone else runs into a similar situation. I guess I'm not super worried, I just want to make sure the VA doesn't screw me on disability. The job has done a number on my body, and not being close to one of those VA counselors that takes a look at your medical info to determine what you need to do is what I will miss. I highly doubt someone like that exists where I'm going.

Similar but different question. I searched, but nothing popped up that was immediately identifiable. I'm about to head overseas for my last assignment. I'm within 2, so this will take me over 20 a bit. I figure with my situation it's never too early to start figuring things out. I'm going to be nowhere near an AF base, and recently I saw in some other thread (can't remember which one) that retiring from overseas can present problems. Doing it away from big blue, I'm sure adds to that problem set. I'm sure where I'll be working will have some info, and others filling this position have probably retired from it in the past, but this is a good source of info... Anyone done this, or know someone who has? I'll reach out with .mil if they don't want to talk here.

Are you joking? He doesn't have any credibility, he simply demonstrates how everyone but Trump gets it...

Hidden Brain podcast episode from Oct 26 is a fascinating listen. Super interesting. Says the bigger problem and divide in the US isn't so much between Rs and Ds, but people who love to talk about politics and those that don't. Point taken, I'm backing out of this world for a while. Gotta stop. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right it is very stupid, but if only there were some normal way to fund what he's trying to do... Please, enlighten us as to why it's illegal to say that. Maybe not official, certainly not illegal. If you slapped a label on your house saying "Office of the conspiracy pusher in Chief" it wouldn't be official, but it also wouldn't be illegal. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Knock it off. He’s got you playing his game... Pointless. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I 100% agree on that last sentence. No honor in those specifically cited examples. They simply didn’t see a way forward, but at least they stopped at the legal ways and didn’t try all of this BS. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You seem to disregard things people say. Irregularities can include anything from fraud to a line of coding that made it read the wrong way. Either way, fraud or not, they exist on a very small scale. No one ever denied that. Stop trying to act like anyone on here ever did. You ignore what other people say that contests your point while sticking to arguments that don't further yours. The age of an article is absolutely relevant when the head of election security, a known and respected expert in the field says, as recently as 2-3 weeks ago that this was the most secure election we've had. Does that negate the possibility of any minor amounts of fraud? No. Does it negate the conspiracies and lies coming from this admin on fraud on a massive scale? You bet. You can make your petty statements and insults on why you "fully understand" your perceived problems of other people, but it doesn't make them true. Just shows you attack the person instead of the point. I'm done, you're becoming the new guardian... ETA: and you're clearly not the only one throwing around personal insults. It's childish and doesn't help anyone's argument. I'll try to leave that out as much as possible. I'll fully admit to allowing the ignorance shown on here (both sides) frustrate the crap out of me.

No, I won't say, "my bad" because what's the difference between you, Sim, Seadogs or anyone else claiming this garbage. Royal You... I already discredited your legitimate links because they were 4 years old. Maybe 1 year old link in there with John Oliver... Don't play lawyer with the words. Standard irregularities that happen with every election, not big enough to change results. Evidence has been posted over and over again of that. Not my fault if you refuse to acknowledge it.

You’re absolutely right. John Oliver is a very humorous entertainer. Thanks for the share. I think we should absolutely listen to him vs a credible expert in the cybersecurity field: https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election I beg to differ on burden of proof. I am on the side of the elections being within the bounds of normal error, acceptable inconsistencies that would not turn the outcome of the election. You are claiming it was fraud and citing (maybe not recently) things like epochtimes, gatewaypundit, Rudy Giuliani, and yes, the most truthful man of them all, the President. Let’s not forget John Oliver, a paid entertainer that I agree is absolutely worth a watch, but doesn’t quite meet the level of professional journalism. Jimmy Fallon and Trevor Noah are also hilarious, but you won’t find me using them to back my point other than tongue in cheek. Let’s just go ahead and cite Tucker Carlson while we’re at it. Oh by the way, he’s on the record in a court of law saying his viewers should not see him as a source of truth and facts... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So, you’re sayihg they found these issues 4 years ago, but sat by and did nothing in the interim? Sure. Where’s the proof of this statement? Otherwise you’re using 4 year old information that is irrelevant. And, we don’t manufacture our own parachutes... Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok, sure. You were totally right to introduce a completely new player into the discussion on whether or not Trump is a good leader or not. Well done... Conversation goes: Trump's a bad leader. People naturally say Obama sucks more, he was too young to lead. People then say Trump is a reality TV star and ignores his smart people. SurelySerious says JFK was better than Obama in the leadership department because he was military. You win...

Yeah, I get that, but I'm drawing it out to show the comparison is not a good comparison. If you can compare those two, why can't we then compare Obama and Trump? It has a little more relevance to current events don't you think? Who cares about JFK in this discussion?

Didn't say it was. You guys will accept a reality tv star, so a law professor should be a step up... My point still stands. You seem to think your slice of the world is the only one out there. It kills me, the staggering amount of people that think combat experience is somehow a magic pill for making "impact decisions". Might it help? You bet. Maybe JFK was a totally mediocre guy in the military. We all know that just because the citation on your medal and your OPR say you're a hero, it doesn't mean it's true...

Considering the CinC is surrounded by experts from every slice, this is an incredibly questionable statement. What makes combat experience (such a teeny, tiny sliver of the things POTUS does) so much more important than a solid understanding of the law for POTUS? If you think combat is what takes up most of POTUS's time, you watch too much TV.

Appreciate the dialogue that doesn't contain childish insults or sources like Rudy Giuliani or OAN. We'll just agree to disagree about the magical panacea, mostly because I'm not sure what you're referring to, what your definition of leadership is, and many other things that might be covered by that blanket statement. I'll try to define what my idea of leadership is for you, and then we can shift from their to get on target. Contrary to many fighter pilots' beliefs, EQ is actually incredibly important, even in the vault or stepping, or in the middle of a long sortie in combat. Someone on here recently dismissed it as if it weren't important because they "just want someone who will hack the mish," or something equally as shortsighted. A leader in combat should definitely be proficient in their specific mission set, but if they don't know how to actually work with different personalities their tactical prowess will only last so long, and they're inviting problems down the road. I'm not sure how everything isn't a leadership problem at some level... Sometimes leadership means you picking up the slack and doing it yourself, sometimes it means letting your people stumble through the mental gymnastics to figure it out on their own, and sometimes it means you find the right people for that specific problem, or simply giving your people the parameters in which they should work and being accountable to the consequences. There's chasms of difference in how to do those things and everything in between. But that's leadership. I never said MX officers should be running the AF. Their flavor of leadership isn't a cure all for every problem, but unfortunately, until very recently, the AF did a piss poor job teaching their people anything real about actual leadership. The only people who got that training were very senior, and even then, maybe they did some, maybe they didn't. I'm sorry, but combat leading is just as niche as running a MX squadron, maybe even more so, and I can't force you to see that, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree there too. Most of my time in the 60 is combat, so I don't disagree that it teaches you valuable lessons, but not every AF level leadership problem requires a split-second, life or death risk decision. Most of it is actually very boring. If you only know combat level, tactical leadership, you'll be ill prepared for dealing with other required types of leadership problems. Again, nothing I say will apparently make you believe this, but that's your deal, and anyone you supervise will have to manage. Not saying you're not a great leader, maybe you are, but I'd put solid money that if your attitude is that only combat, aircrew leadership is the way to run the AF, you have unhappy people in your organization. I know a lot of great leaders in the AF, but they don't rely on their experience in the cockpit for real leadership 90%+ of the time. They have worked on making themselves better leaders to benefit the people they are serving. They read up on how to be better, not just in the vault... On the pick of Harris being a racist thing, "whatever Russ, whatever..." That's a fairly cynical, myopic viewpoint. I think she's a crappy politician, but that's my opinion. Plenty of people don't. See, Sim's post about 73 million people thinking DT knows how to lead a country... We're all entitled to our opinion. If you label them all as stupid, I can't help you. Heaven knows there's plenty of people on the left labeling all Trump supporters as stupid. That's doing wonders for our country... No clue what you're talking about on CA, don't really care. If everything in CA but the Redwoods and Yosemite fell into the Pacific Ocean tomorrow, I wouldn't mind. CA is full of crazies, so of course they're going to do/say stupid things.

I'll bite. Not surprised with Trump. Surprised with people's continued defense of his actions/"leadership". Surprised officers think Trump has any leadership skills whatsoever. Surprised it isn't clearly, painfully obvious that he has way less leadership capability than virtually every president in recent history. I wasn't a fan of Obama before or during his presidency, but he clearly exhibited more leadership capability than Trump has at any point during his 4 years. By yours and the other points made here, making decisions doesn't equate to leadership. Being an executive, running multiple failed companies doesn't equate to leadership. Being a reality TV personality doesn't equate to leadership. By your question, I take it to mean a person has no place running the Free world without massive experience in leadership? In your incredibly wise opinion, what's that bar/limit? AF officers have no place in most leadership capacities by your logic. "Leading" a two, fourship or , whoa, an LFE is actual leadership? Leading a squadron with maybe 100 people? Stop kidding yourself. MX officers have twice as much leadership as most of us pilots by the time they're Captains, but that's heresy in the pilot's AF. People get offended, but you are being hypocritical saying Obama had no leadership experience when you claim your own experience is actually leadership. Trump made for "ok" reality TV, that's it. He's been a failure who was given a massive jumpstart by daddy, and survived off name recognition the rest of the time. I'm using some hyperbole, but you get the idea... I'd almost guarantee that most of the intelligent people in this board, if I were able to give them the amount of money Trump was given by his daddy, would be just as rich if not moreso by now. With a much less questionable history (you know, misogyny, disgusting comments about dating his daughter, and clear evidence of racism) and a lot less bankruptcies... But Trump is a great leader, sure. Seriously, a PT boat skipper equates for you? You're probably in the group that includes leading an LFE as massive leadership experience and thinks a fighter pilot could easily lead any other type of squadron because they know BFM... People often aren't prepared for the govt position they're given. They are surrounded by people invested in ensuring they have good advice and help. Most depend on that. Some, Trump, ignore it because they "know" better than everyone. Trump's publicly claimed as much. He knows more than his generals about all the military decisions he's made. He said so... Great leader. You guys win. ETA: Let me clarify that while I do acknowledge leading in combat and even in LFEs is actual leadership, my point is that it is a very specific form of leadership that doesn’t slice across all situations nicely. I’ve led in the flying world and the non-flying world. Two different animals. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/republicans-denounce-trump-krebs-cybersecurity-437716?cid=apn Yup, ridiculous when your own party can't understand why you fired a guy you appointed for no reason other than doing a good job. Weird... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I absolutely agree with you that he isn't the only one to ever do it, and at times for shady reasons even. To be clear though, are you saying the rate at which Trump has done this, and the frequency with which he does it for the specific reasons he does it are commonplace in the executive? I think you'd need to prove that point if so. All presidents have done it, no one is denying that, or calling it a threat. Just pointing out a very common trend with this particular president.

Dude, Obama wasn't a guy I voted for or liked. Barking up the wrong tree. Correct me if I'm wrong, Obama is more or less guilty of chronieism than Trump...

You're right. Not abnormal in the slightest in this revolving door administration. Firing his own political appointee because he's a lauded cyber-security expert who doesn't stand by while he spout lies from his bully pulpit. As Sim says so frequently, nothing to see here. Just making sure my propaganda machine is unhindered from things like truth and fact... Not worth another reply, so I'll just throw it in here. Gerald Walpin was a Bush appointee removed by Obama. Totally the same thing... Good point...🤦‍♂️ Makes me wonder, what administration has the record for most upper level positions constantly being rotated like we've seen the last 4 years. Is this the first time, or have there been equally "temporary" admins in the past?

Oops... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-election-challenges/2020/11/17/ea741372-28f6-11eb-8fa2-06e7cbb145c0_story.html Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk