Lord Ratner

Oh dear. This might be the best indicator yet that we are in trouble

Color me shocked...

FYI. A commander can order you to stay on base (or at a particular hotel), but if you disobey, as long as you still follow the JTR, they have to reimburse you. Your commander can, however, punish you with paperwork for not following an order.

I get what you're saying, but in this particular instance (foreigner travel ban), how are Americans' freedoms being diminished?

Thank you for proving my point. Wanna check that article again?

Sheer lunacy. The only difference now is that instead of the political advisors listening in the corner then bending the president's ear after, the discourse can happen with all other players present. If politics have no role, why is the secretary of state on the PC? Or do only international politics have a role in national security?

Woe be unto the other members of the NSC, too weak and afraid to continue protecting America under the crushing influence of Darth Bannon. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Political advisors have been there in the past, they just made Bannon official. Obama was the most political president possibly ever, and his political advisors had their hands in everything. I would take all of this much more seriously if the people saying it hasn't been ignoring it completely for the past 8-16 years. But then again, Trump made an art of taking previously established but unacknowledged misdeeds of the political class and weaponizing against them. Why should this be any different?

2017: The NSC and HSC shall have as their regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the National Security Advisor, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Representative of the United States to the United Nations. [...] The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. 2001: The National Security Council (NSC) shall have as its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisors to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings. 2017: The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor. The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed. 2001: The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) will continue to be the senior interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security, as it has since 1989. The NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as chair). The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed.

What is unclear about this? "The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as statutory advisers to the NSC, shall also attend NSC meetings." Edit to add: Furthermore, since the hullabaloo seems be be over the principals committee, where the memo states: "The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed." Since when did the SECDEF stop being the military representative within the executive branch? I don't know what "fake news" is, but if it exists, this seems pretty close. They were not removed. They were explicitly included. And even if they were excluded, which they were not, they aren't at the same level as the others on the principals committee. Should the CSAF be on the committee? What about the Vance wing commander? Hyperbole, yes, but I think the point is valid.

Check your sources, bro. It's unfortunate, but in this media environment, reading, seeing, or hearing it in the news isn't enough.

No complaints so far, brother. I am enjoying watching the Republicans, who passed about what? 60 repeal bills for ObamaCare when they knew it would get vetoed? All of a sudden not pass a damn thing. Lots of swamp left.

Un-ing real. Do us all a favor and keep this shit to yourself. Are you related to the guy who thinks all business negotiations are rational? This is not how we win the battle, boys and girls. If your wife starts wearing lingerie at night, you don't spit in her face, tell her to put on sweat pants and get a better-paying job. You take the win, say thank you, shake hands, then immediately start pressing for the next win.

This sentence makes it seem as though you've never been involved in a business negotiation.

That was hilarious

The EU nations in NATO are taking advantage of our generosity, and have been for years. They aren't Haiti, or some other natural disaster-ravaged nation. Granted, many of the Americans who are OK with Europe having a pathetic military wish that we would follow suit, but as long as we are paying for them, we should expect a contribution proportional to their economic size.

This! So much this! We aren't in a war at Qatar. If the war can be done over the phone and internet from Qatar, it can be done over the phone and internet from Shaw. Sure, you don't get complete ownership over the mind and body of your "warfighters," but maybe in a manning crisis you can make some compromises...

Surely not...

Do you acknowledge that this is exactly why the EC exists? 2016 wasn't a fluke, it was the EC working exactly as it was intended to. I don't understand why people keep talking about the difference between the EC and the popular vote when the EC exists to protect against the popular vote.

I'm interested, but I can't see any of the pictures No Texas flag for me, but the FAIP mafia flag would be awesome Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

How does continuation work? Is there a minimum ADSC with it? Can you accept continuation and decide to separate six months later? Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Wow! Continuation offered? That's surprising. Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

I may be wrong, but I do not believe it accounts for people who quit during the window, which is why the number of eligible members drops. So if you 3 day opt out of a 365 during the window, you would drop out of the eligible pool. It makes the numbers look better, which is scary considering how bad they look Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Yet... When offered the chance, every fighter pilots will...

Pilot training was easy. You'll do fine Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

They have a twin Comanche now as well. They send a sheet with all the plane-specific gk they want you to know. The rest of your gouge was solid Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk