HerkPerfMan
-
Posts
119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by HerkPerfMan
-
-
On 1/5/2017 at 6:11 PM, Kiloalpha said:
The 17th Amendment was a mistake.
I disagree. Senators should be accountable to their constituency, just like all other elected officials. States are still given equal weight in the Senate, and the Senators are chosen by the citizens on each state. Even in a Republic, I think layers of separation between a constituency and their representatives create opportunity for misplaced loyalty, entrenched interests, and corruption. Plus, I wouldn't trust my state legislature to choose qualified senators - hell, I don't trust them to do much of anything but bicker and waste my money.
I'm no scholar of the 17th amendment so I won't comment on your assessment. But I wouldn't use the dirty word of Presentism to describe my view - more of "living" view with priority still placed on original meaning. The founding fathers were some smart guys and they created something new and comprehensive in the Constitution. But they also acknowledged that they didn't know everything, that they wouldn't get it right on the first try, and that the world was dynamic. One of the greatest and most insightful inclusions in the Constitution is Article 5 - the ability to amend it. It is an arduous process with a high barrier, as it should be. There have been 27 amendments since the Constitution was ratified, including 1 to repeal a previous amendment (Prohibition). I believe that the framers wanted future generations to apply their guiding principles to learn from experience and modify when necessary. The framers themselves learned that the original EC construct wasn't working and in 1804 the 12th amendment was ratified to solve their contemporary problem of deadlocked elections and opposing candidates potentially becoming President and Vice President. Amendments have been fairly regular until recently, when the Constitution has been viewed as some holy document passed down from on high. Originalism is one thing, but exulting the Constitution (and its creators) to religious status is something else. We need to learn from our history and experience, and adapt in a dynamic world using the very tools that the framers gave us - hence the American Experiment.
Anyway, I veered off the topic a bit, but this will be my last post about it. To summarize my position : The Constitution is truly remarkable and I will defend it to my death; the framers wanted us to change it based on our experience; the EC could use an amendment to account for the national popular vote. I certainly appreciate the debate.
On 1/5/2017 at 6:11 PM, Kiloalpha said:The National Popular Vote Compact people are like Jehovah's Witnesses in the state legislatures. They just show up in your office out of nowhere and tell you how wonderful their idea is. They love giving you their book and preaching about fairness and inequality. They won't leave when asked and usually take a Police Officer or two to get the hint that they're no longer welcome.
And I bet they have big, goofy, bewildered smiles on their faces as they are dragged out in cuffs.
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, tk1313 said:
Sorry, but I don't even want to hear talk of a popular vote until we raise the abysmal voter turnout way higher. Also, what happens if the popular vote reveals that all those people in California and New York who didn't vote were all Republicans? Maybe they didn't vote because they know their state/county is going to go blue anyways. Obviously that's a long shot, but are we going to keep flipping which vote is more important based on who decides to b1tch loudest at the time?
The popular vote seems more like mob rule than "will of the people" right now.This is exactly what happens now. Republican voters in CA, NY, and IL are not heard since all of their electoral votes go blue and it most likely depresses their turnout. With a national popular vote or proportional EC, every Republican vote in CA would actually count - so would every Dem vote in Alabama.
17 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:The Federal Government provides roughly $343 Billion dollars a year to California through a total of grants and services. CA receives the largest amount of any state in the union, by a significant margin.
In 2016, federal funds consisted of 36% of CA's state budget. That's insane. Don't forget that California has the "wall of debt" that's somewhere above $440 billion dollars. Of that, around $8 billion is money owed directly to the Federal Government. The rest are outstanding obligations to pensions and the variety of state and municipal bonds that CA/Dems seems to love so much. Those bonds are state-insured. You take the Federal Government and the backing of the US Dollar away and all of a sudden those bonds are even less likely to be paid off, meaning a default is that much more likely.
Listen. It was bad enough when the nation's credit analysts a few years back said the chances of CA defaulting were one in five. Take away the rest of the union and you're essentially up shit creek without a paddle.
Speaking of Alabama, which is a reliably red state and voted 62% for Trump, let's see how it stacks up on federal give-and-take: The Federal Government provides roughly $60 billion annually to AL (includes the same grants, services, and direct payments as your total for CA) and direct federal funds account for 36% of AL's state revenue (about $8 billion). And AL contributes only $19 billion back to the feds. While the dollar totals for CA are greater, it is also the most populous state in the union and it takes roughly the same as it gives.
Look, I'm not trying to defend anything about CA - I've never lived there, never want to. My point is that we can look at these numbers for every state and find blue states that give more than they take and red states that take more than they give. And they all rely on federal money in their budgets no matter how much they like to bash the feds.
17 hours ago, Kiloalpha said:"All votes are equal" is a nice catch phrase but it is unfortunately impossible unless you're talking about a direct democracy, and that's something that was explicitly absent from the Constitution.
Simply? No.
The President (and this nation, if we're being honest) is a unique mix of state's rights and federal powers. The President is actually elected by the states in our electoral system, not by the general public. This idea of state rule was even more clear when one looks back before the seventeenth amendment. Bottom line, the President is the President of the United States.
This is a good point and highlights the role of states' right in the presidential election and EC - thanks for adding it to the discussion. I would counter that the 17th amendment was a clear move toward direct democracy, by instituting statewide direct election of senators. Wouldn't the next step on that path be direct election of the only federal office? And isn't "all votes are equal" a worthy goal? But where would that leave consent from the states? That's why I think keeping the EC and changing it to a proportional distribution of electors would maintain the state/fed mix while minimizing the chance of a disconnect between the EC and national popular vote results.
14 hours ago, tac airlifter said:all votes are equal..... within their state. States are not given equal representation nationally, they are represented according to population. "The will of the people" is not as simple as you are making it sound because the United States is, well, states that decided to unite. Why should the entire center of the country be marginalized because CA & NY share similar values?
What you are talking about is restructuring the foundational philosophy of this country. If you are going to do something that big, it should be via constitutional amendment. Think carefully about an end-run around the correct process: it means the majority of a state can vote one way and the EC can disregard the will of those people in favor of the people's will in other states. That is the definition of institutionalized disenfranchisement, a historic fomenter of civil war.
I agree - changes to letter and spirit of the Constitution require an amendment. To be clear, I am not personally advocating for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But it is certainly relevant to this discussion. My personal preference would be to keep the EC but award each states electors as percentages of the state's popular vote, rather than winner-take-all or apportioned by congressional district since we all know those are gerrymandered to hell nationwide.
13 hours ago, RTB said:IMO, any talk about disenfranchisement because the popular vote was opposite the EC vote is pointless. Yes, the losing side is upset and understandably, but they have to acknowledge the facts. This election outcome was a direct result of the campaign plan and execution by both candidates. The Donald and his team campaigned to win the EC, NOT necessarily to win the popular vote. Campaigning to win the popular vote would have looked very different. And likely would have resulted in a significantly different number of voters turning out to vote since they would know their vote would count in hard left states like CA and NY.
Absolutely it would change the way presidential campaigns are planned and executed. And I absolutely agree that voters in every state would be energized to participate, even in hard right and left states, because they will have an actual impact.
2 minutes ago, ihtfp06 said:
What if in California 120% of the eligible electorate turns out?That only happens in IL. We're proud that our cemeteries have the highest turnout in the nation.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 12/29/2016 at 3:49 PM, Duck said:
I don't know man, I'm kinda hoping California just kinda falls off into the sea.
Be careful what you wish for - CA has the 6th largest economy in the world and contributes >$300 billion a year to the federal coffers (11%), which we all benefit from.
On 12/30/2016 at 10:12 AM, HeloDude said: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.
2008 and 2012 were not exactly close elections with Obama getting 7.2% and 3.9% victory margins, respectively, in the popular vote and hefty EC victories. No disagreement between popular and EC votes, which is the expected outcome and has been true for all but 5 of 58 presidential elections. So why spend political capital messing with it? But when a candidate wins the popular vote by a 2.1% margin and handily loses the EC, don't you think that disconnect disenfranchises voters and subverts the "will of the people"? I'm not disputing the outcome of the election - Trump won fair and square according to the Constitutional rules, period. But that wasn't who a plurality of our nation voted for. I would be making the same argument if the tables were turned.
Of course voting trends, opinions, the number of states, and political parties themselves change over time. Democrats are disenfranchised by the EC right now. That could easily swing the other way but the key point is that VOTERS are disenfranchised over the long term. I did not wake up on November 9 and decide the EC was bad - I just had more substantiation for that opinion.
My assertion that "all votes are not equal" is demonstrably true. See previous comment and outcome of 5 previous elections over the last 200 years. Yes, there are 51 separate elections in 50 states and DC, but the assignment of electors is based on House seats (population) plus 2 (for 2 senators per state) and they are winner-take-all except 2 states. Since the presidency is a NATIONAL office decided by a NATIONAL election, shouldn't the NATIONAL vote decide the outcome? I would also argue that the national popular vote would make our election process more resilient and prevent targeted tampering/influencing from swaying the overall outcome - something that I think will see more of in the future.
An end-run around a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC is already underway: 10 states and DC have signed on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would allow each state to award their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote, rather than the state's individual popular vote. I'm not sure I agree with that arrangement - it would make more sense to assign state electors based on the state's vote distribution rather than winner-take-all.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, HU&W said:
I don't think I said there's a new insight. There's just a lot more purple in the form of bluish red and red-ish blue (politically blended) than I had expected; both in cities and the midwest. I especially found insight in the islands of deepest blue (DC & San Fran) and the web of solid red, while I was surprised by some of the places I'd expected to be solid blue that were actually purple.
Right, nothing new just an alternative perspective. The problem with the state (or county) election maps is that they exaggerate the gap between right and left based on physical geography, and completely overlook the large portion of "purple" voters.
The "dead smurf" map also shows how disadvantaged Democrats are by the Electoral College since they are concentrated in a few geographies. The bottom line is that not all votes are equal - it depends where you live.
2,900,000 votes >> 80,000 votes
80,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA >> 2,900,000 votes anywhere else
The best strategy for the Democrats in 2020 would be offer relocation packages for CA residents to move to swing states. No need to sway anyone or win hearts and minds - just change where you vote.
Anyway, the Organization of Cartographers for Social Equality would be happy we're having this discussion.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, guineapigfury said:
Does it come with a sweet Rebel Alliance flightsuit and helmet like the guy in the back is wearing?
Yes, the Porkins Package is a factory option, but it cuts into the useful payload.
-
4
-
-
On 12/24/2016 at 11:10 AM, JarheadBoom said:
I don't believe Airbus has flown a receptacle on any of their commercial airframes, so there's a bunch of engineering, development, and testing money that would need to be spent (and eventually recovered) for that capability.
Airbus A330 MRTT has UARRSI installed as well.
-
On 12/24/2016 at 10:48 AM, Breckey said:
There's always the T-46
Reminds me of this new airframe from South Africa - the unfortunately named "Advanced High-Performance Reconnaissance Light Aircraft" (AHRLAC). And I think you only need a Light Sport certificate to fly it...
-
17 hours ago, redshift2020 said:
Redshift actually refers the how a tactical aviation radar works or redshifted light in astronomy. I have American roots dating to the 1600s, family in the revolutionary, civil war and every conflict that America has been involved with, so you with that said, kindly GFYS.
Secondly the source is the WASHINGTON POST who hates Donald Trump. Two tools for you today cause that's what you are, calling me a Russian. I'm the furthest thing from it.
That's exactly what a covert operative would say! But seriously, it seems my sarcastic accusation did not translate well.
5 hours ago, Ram said:I'm not confident that Putin attempted to influence the election in Trump's favor. I just think that's an unintended (and a bonus for Putin) second-order effect of what the then-Soviet and now-Russian gov't always does: Attempt to subvert the legitimacy of democratic governments by sowing seeds of doubt among the populace.
Exactly. And it's become much easier on the internet and through social media. Of course, we run our own influence campaigns around the world in favor of candidates with positions favorable to U.S. interests.
3 hours ago, gearpig said:I can't believe they would do such things. https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
And those same disinformation and influence campaigns are not limited to national elections.
Whoever hacked the DNC committed a crime which should be investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted. If the perpetrators were foreign government agents or directed by foreign governments, it was espionage and should be treated as such.
As far as Russia influencing the electorate for a particular candidate, I think the line in the sand would be whether there was communication, collaboration, or collusion with that particular candidate's campaign - which, to be clear, the FBI has already investigated. Without that, there's not much that can be done about external influence except to shake our fists at Putin and do the same to him in the future.
As far as the effectiveness of any external disinformation and manipulation campaign, it's impossible to tell. If HRC had won, we would say Russia's efforts failed. Since Trump did win, it's easy to say that it was those damn Russians when, in reality, it was a multitude of factors. Many voters decided in the final few weeks before the election, and they broke for Trump in huge numbers - was it Russian disinformation, or the FBI email investigation announcements, or people flocking to Trump's message, or a combination of 100 other things?
I hate to drag the Electoral College into this, but it's worth noting that it makes any external influence campaign easier - using the same tactics as a presidential campaign. They only need to influence a few voters in key states to the get the desired outcome.
-
50 minutes ago, redshift2020 said:
Believe it or not they are coming out with articles as of 18 hours ago that many believe it was our own intelligence community that leaked the information to Wikileaks.
Despite my fear of prompting a link to an InfoWars "article," I'll ask the question: who is "they"?
50 minutes ago, redshift2020 said:I just refuse to believe that Russia can have any possible effect on the outcome of our election. I mean for crying out loud just how exactly can they influence the US population when our own media fails miserably at the job as hard as they try? How are they convincing Mr and Mrs middle America that they should vote for whom Russia supposedly supports?
This is how. Based on your SNAP status and your not-so-subtle, Russia-leaning screen name, you may be one of Putin's operatives described in the article!
-
2 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
The C-130 is an A model and all are gone as far as I know.
The KC-135 is an A model and all are gone as far as I know.
An argument can be for the B-57 as NASA still has three flying, but there are all F models and the one pictures is an E model. If you care B-57E Tail #54244 is on display at Strategic Air and Space Museum, Offutt AFB, Bellevue, Nebraska.
An argument could also be made for the BUFF, but that looks like a big tail and they are all gone.
Fairly certain all the Tweets are gone, unless some dictator is South America or Africa has one in his garage.
That leaves the F-86, several privately owned owns are out there and a company was using them to pull darts for you pointy nose drivers.
Now you made me miss the early bird special so GET OFF MY LAWN.
I was just going on basic models still in U.S. government service, not specific variants:
1. B-52 (USAF)
2. KC-135 (USAF)
3. C-130 (USAF, USMC, USCG, NASA)
4. B-57 (NASA still flies WB-57)
If we're opening it up to all models that still have airworthy examples, a lot more can be added to the list.
-
4 hours ago, gearpig said:
What a time to be involved in aviation it must have been. I just googled the B-36 for the hell of it and learned it was a testbed for some crazy ideas like tracked landing gear and wingtip towing of fighters.
The B-36 was also the testbed for another kind of "nuclear bomber" - the NB-36H flying nuclear reactor.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, DirkDiggler said:
I got 4
Me too, if active NASA service counts.
Are any F-86 or Century Series fighters still in the inventory, even if only used by TPS or something?
-
-
6 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:
What's the max speed on a T-45? If it's not supersonic then forget it.
4 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:Go with reason
T-38 is a supersonic advanced trainer, so I made the leap that T-X would have to be supersonic as well. But going back through the T-X requirements matrix, speed is not even mentioned. The closest thing I can find is: "25. Maneuverability - flight characteristics - Remain in controlled flight while conducting all APT syllabus maneuvers." Are there any supersonic maneuvers in the APT syllabus? If not, then I stand corrected and a transonic jet fits the bill.
-
On 9/13/2016 at 6:53 PM, matmacwc said:
I think we should buy the Korean trainer or the T-45.
What's the max speed on a T-45? If it's not supersonic then forget it.
-
-
19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
No doubt, saw an HC-27J a few months ago, looked good in Coastie colors but me still thinks the Guard should be flying it.
There's a market and requirement for a common light tactical airlift in the US amongst the military & public safety agencies, ala the JCA. Forest service, CG, Military and with some of our usual friends, too bad we couldn't heard all the cats together to settle on one.
Switching gears to Chinese airlift, saw the Y-30 concept, A400 clone or just inspired by?
Form factor looks "inspired by" A400M but the early specs I've seen suggest a smaller size - more like 180,000 lb GW vs 260,000 lb for an A400M. The size may grow as the design matures to get it beyond the C-130 weight class. Not sure what they have in mind for engines, as that may also be a limiting factor on GW.
-
On 9/2/2016 at 2:25 AM, pbar said:
The poor Coasties seem to be so underfunded that they could only get that in their wildest, 4-day-bender-in-Vegas dreams. I've never understood why, if Homeland Security is our #1 priority, the Coast Guard is chronically underfunded.
On 9/2/2016 at 8:07 AM, Clark Griswold said:No argument on that, as it is done at sea I think in some ways it is an out of sight out of mind thing for why the CG doesn't get the resourcing it needs.
Right now, CG is more worried about funding to actually operate the C-27J hand-me-downs and a few C-130J add-ons they've been gifted recently. New airframe acquisition will be on the back-burner for a long time.
-
On 4/5/2016 at 4:03 PM, Clark Griswold said:
Too bad - looks like they proposed keeping the same wing and I always wondered what they thought the STOL performance of it would have been.
Probably the same wing planform and area, but with improved flaps, slats or drooped leading edge to target equivalent STOL performance at higher gross weights.
More photos for the MC-130J with winglets at Eglin. The short description also mentions a Lift Distribution Control System, which was described in several of the LM fuel efficiency papers.
-
17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
Did ever go beyond a few scant details or was a formal pitch made to the AF or a foreign customer?
I don't think any of the "XL" or "wide body" designs ever got past the study phase since there was never a formal requirement for USAF.
-
1 hour ago, Blue said:
Had never heard of Snow Aviation. Google brought up some interesting info, one of many links below.
So the guy basically wanted to sell C-130 upgrades as an alternative to buying the J, but seems like after ten+ years, they couldn't make it happen. Primarily due to the fact they were good engineers and lousy business people.
That about sums it up. They had several good proposals and the technical capability to back it up, but couldn't get traction. LM's competing resources and friends in high places probably had something to do with it as well. I'm not sure the current status of their C-130A...it may be beer cans by now.
In the '80s, it appears Lockheed was enamored with the three-hole design after the L-1011 TriStar design. From the same link that Clark posted, I was pleased to see this photo of yet another Herc variant for the Navy with 3 turbofans replacing the 4 turboprops. I remember seeing this design previously but not in the public domain. The ECX-130 (and KCX-130 for the tanker variant) had a completely redesigned aft body with a T-tail, similar to the C-141. But they left the nose exactly the same. This would have been an interesting sight, to say the least.
-
On 4/2/2016 at 11:58 PM, Clark Griswold said:
About 20% bigger than the C-27J so it may have been a smidge too big for the JCA requirements or at that size with two engines not able to meet the short field requirements but would have been interesting to see LM enter a J model version of this for the JCA program.
LM ended up partnering with Alenia on the C-27J briefly around the time of the JCA program, rather than build a twin-engine "mini Herc."
Snow Aviation developed some interesting mod packages for legacy C-130s but never signed any customers. They were trying to compete with the J by offering performance and avionics upgrades (referred to as "C-130M") as an alternative to fleet recapitalization with Js. Snow had a C-130A that they had a lot of fun with - they were the first to fly with the 8-blade props (NP2000).
Snow developed a wingtip fuel tank too as a replacement for the underwing tanks. It had many advantages in lift distribution, aileron effectiveness, and stall delay. Never made it past flight testing.
-
I would put my money on "microvanes" for more drag reduction, less weight, and fewer integration headaches...but winglets are sexier. Here is a good summary of all the drag reduction initiatives in work at LM, as of 2012.
-
Commercial Aviation air refueling
in General Discussion
Posted
+1. No one wants to sit in coach longer than the current long-haul flights. The big twin jets can fly almost half around the world non-stop - there is little need to go further than that.
I think this is the only viable advantage of this concept - it could help larger aircraft or enable longer flights from smaller airports. Rather than trying to extend range/endurance, you could load up with passengers (or cargo) at a smaller airfield and enough fuel to get to AR rendezvous near departure then top off to reach your destination. There are several cities around the world with large, distant hubs and smaller airfields near the city center. This could make those smaller airfields more accessible and enable non-stop long-haul flights. But passengers would certainly pay a premium.