HeloDude

Are you suggesting a SP, gaining SA from talking to quite a few different people in each MDS, along with having self awareness (again, this is key), can't also take these variables you suggest into consideration? I have recently seen quite a few married (some with children) SP's in UPT (especially with the all the Captains), and even the single students are asking what the older guys think with regards to lifestyle.

Again, then why are so many pilots getting out if the mission is relatively constant?

But to use your same argument, then why are so many pilots getting out of the AF for a better "lifestyle"? After all, what's causing guys leave now is now is subject to change, right? Yes, I am playing devil's advocate...but I would honestly be interested in hearing your response...

Funny, the vast majority of guys I know getting out (both fixed and rotor wing) are doing it for a better "lifestyle". If a SP has enough SA and true self awareness (this is critical) to choose an aircraft based off what he/she thinks will give them an overall better life, I say good on them! Now if someone believes the emotional satisfaction of mission X vs mission Y will give them a better life, then likewise that should be their driving decision. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion...

All good questions to ask your ROTC cadre. Not trying to be a jerk, but seriously, this is exactly what they are there to do.

Confirmed

All the line IPs knew what happened and why he did what he did. It's fine to disagree with what leadership does, but this wasn't a shocker to the IPs...

That was only available to those who signed the 5-year bonus the previous year...

So there was only 1 international student of Vance's class 17-14 that track selected on Wed...

There was only one international student in that class at Vance.

For those on the left who think this is political, they are correct...and if I was a betting man, I bet Trump wins. Think about it:. All that has to happen in the next few years is an attack in the US by one refugee from one of these countries and Trump will win the argument politically. Don't forget, just like th election, he's not trying to convince those on theft, just sure up support from those in the middle and on the right (the ones who elected him). So what are the odds we have some type of an attack from one of thes tens of thousands of refugees? Unfortunately it's a pretty good bet. Full disclosure: I'm obviously not for terrorist attacks, but I am smart enough to know that they happen and will continue to happen. So just when the left uses mass shootings to say that's why need more gun control, Trump will use a future refugee attack to say he was right politically. It's all sad that this is how politics works in our country, but when both sides are deeply polarized then this is what you get. I'm not a big fan of Trump, but the fact that half the country thinks he is stupid plays right into his hands--he did it with GOP nomination, the general election, and he's doing it now. So far Trump has been playing 3 dimensional chess...only time will tell if the strategy will continue to work.

So then why does the CSAF have an interest in non-AF matters?

I'm pretty sure Obama did more to help the Ayotolla in Iran than Trump has helped Putin in the last couple of weeks. And I remember the silence on the left when Obama helped the Ayotolla...it was deafening...

Yes, the recruiter is full of it. AOs are under no AFI/policy guidance to get AD members stationed at guard/reserve bases to be with a part-time reservist. That isn't to say it couldn't happen since the March assignment is always a possibility, just know that the AO doesn't have to answer for not doing it. AOs only have to station AF AD members married to AF AD members (or get AFPC CC approval to not do it). Yes, I am a join spouse...

Not a single person is forced to be a pilot. And as for the earlier question of if they will allow a stud in 38's who didn't want to be there to then flow to T-1's?...is this a serious question? The question is definitely no. Only possibility would be a medical issue arising for a stud in 38's where they couldn't complete the 38 program but could complete the T-1 program.

Much less than releasing him over 25 years early...

Ugh...and here I thought Liberty would be front and center. Where's Ron Paul when you need him?

Do you have information regarding a future bill to remove firearm supressors (aka 'silencers') off the NFA list? Thanks!

Fingers crossed...then again, I don't see too many proposed amendments that would get 3/4 state legislature support needed for ratification. This is why I call complete BS on progressives saying they want to change the EC/process for electing president--if progressives really wanted the change they speak of then they would do what is necessary on their end for the best chance possible of it becoming a ratified amendment. It always comes down to politics and making people feel like victims, so in the end progressives can have more control...populists and conservatives want the same thing.

I'm aware. Just pointing out that they didn't even try to pass a Constitutional Amendment the last time they controlled both houses of Congress and thus controlled the agenda. Besides, I'm not aware of a Constitutional Amendment ever being passed without bipartisan support, so if it wasn't worth progressives' efforts when they had super majorities then I don't know why they would bring it up now...because surely their current argument can't just be because of politics, right?

If Democrats are so disenfranchised by the EC then how were they able to win in 2008 and 2012? Try researching the EC vote (i.e. state by state races) since the late 1700's--you'll see that states, elections, etc change with time, and likewise this 'advantage/disadvantage' you speak of. As you mentioned, Democrats do this to themselves because progressives love living close to other progressives--well, enjoy your progressive states like California, New York, Massachusetts, et, and likewise, enjoy Trump being president. Besides, I don't recall Democrats in 2009 trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment in Congress when they had large majorities... And with regards to your assertion that "all votes are not equal"...this is completely false. Since we have 51 individual state elections for president, all votes in each respective state (or district for Nebraska and Maine) is equal.

He said "it sizes the counties according to population"...so this map already adjusted for differences in population. Unless I'm missing something?

All completely valid, but that wasn't my point. My point is that 2004 was similar to 2012 in popular vote and that 2016 wasn't too far from 2012 from an electoral college standpoint...yet Nsplayr didn't mention 2012 as being close but said 2004 and 2016 were both close. We have to compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges not apples to oranges...

It's almost as easy as if states could adopt this process on their own..wait a minute, two states already do! We are the United 'States' of America...each state decides how to divide/award their electoral votes as the states decide how they choose the presidents, not necessarily directly the individual people within those states. That being said, I always thought it was interesting how states like Michigan didn't take the same approach as Maine and Nebraska. In 2012 Michigan was ran by the GOP but hadn't gone for a Republican since 1988...and I don't think too many GOP state legislators who really thought Trump was going to win their state in Nov. My apologies if Michigan needs to be changed via a popular vote referendum vs state legislature--I'm too lazy to research.

This was your first mistake...