ViperMan

Voting in the next election isn't going to solve anything. There will be no candidates that are middle of the road that could actually undo the fracture within our society. The outcome is going to be one thing: one group will lose big time, and the other group will hold the reigns of power for four years. Our current cultural moment is one in which when one party wins, the other loses. We are not going to have a candidate that is going to offer any middle ground. Your vote isn't going to change that most basic fact. It didn't always used to be that way, either.

Based on what you wrote, it's safe to say we have diametrically opposed views on who and what Snowden is and we will not likely reach agreement. I think he is a sock-puppet Russian spy who was specifically designed to take advantage of a certain element within the American psyche that looks to defend the concept of liberty and has a certain default level of distrust in the government - all of which I can understand to some degree, and which I can support given our country's founding on July 4th. It makes him the perfect psyop. You can also look at the precipitous slide in relations between major world powers in the last 10 years (i.e. since 2013 when the revelations happened) and the theft of other computer-hacking tools from the CIA/NSA/etc, which have certainly been used against us to unknown effect and draw a not-so-indistinct line between the idea that a "patriot" traitor inspired other people in positions of trust within our government to betray it. How were those tools "stolen"? Do we even know? Are they being used against us right now? The bit about how the program was used for personal gain/vendetta carries the same structure as the "guns kill people" argument from the left. Any tool can be used or abused by people with an agenda - that doesn't negate the necessity of the tool. And in any case, the NSA isn't collecting a database of your dick-pics. Even if they were, based purely on volume, they'd only be able to look at a single pic for no more than .000069 seconds. You call what he did whistle-blowing. I call what he did treason. I don't think those NSA programs were illegal. I think the Russians/Chinese/terrorists, probably already had some general idea that they were going on, but the net effect was to inspire a distrust in the US institutional apparatus...how's that working for us today? So yeah, when Vivek says he would pardon Snowden, he loses me - because it shows me his level of discernment/big picture SA. He has missed the point of Snowden - which was to inspire distrust of our government - not to disclose government programs that basically amount to the government collecting data that everyone was willingly giving to there phone-service provider anyway.

Vivek loses me when he supports Snowden being pardoned. Who, for the record, is a Russian counter-intelligence professional. A spy who did more damage to our national security than anyone else I can name, except for maybe the Rosenbergs. He has fell, hook, line, and sinker, for a Russian op. Having him as President would be good in some dimensions, and catastrophic in others. Maybe he'll wake up, time will tell. I think his heart is in the right place overall, but he is woefully misled in certain areas.

By your logic nuclear submarines and M1 Abrams tanks are "jets". Turbine-powered does not equal jet.

The government discussing aliens "seriously" is officially the moment our government jumped the shark.

You are correct. The AOTC is the one that is 100% up to $2000. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/aotc

As other people said, use the Roth version of the TSP. Shelter as much of your future income as possible. Not necessarily a financial strategy, but there is something she's probably eligible for, called the lifetime learning credit. Even if she just takes personal interest courses, I'd rather have my $2000 spent on me than some social project. https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/individuals/llc

If you're not getting injected right now (sts) it's already too late...

@BashiChuni, your previous two posts have been attempts to change the subject. i.e. they are tacit admissions that you've lost the argument. Can you explain for the crowd why Russia would agree to all those treaties and agreements that placed no limit on NATO's expansion and why you argue that in fact it is, provocative, Russia didn't know what they were signing up for at the time, or something to that effect? Or are you just going to continue to rage white?

You never got in a fist fight as a kid did you.

No dude. See my opinions on the Iraq war, COVID, affirmative action, abortion rights, etc. I am pointing out that you have a position that is inconsistent with reality. That primary fact being your argument rests upon something even Russia does not hold to be true: namely that they agreed there would be no limits to NATO expansion and have publicly and formally ratified such notions. Your argument rests upon a counterfactual that is not true. If you want to spout off with something that contravenes that which is obviously true for anyone who does even the most basic homework, then you need to articulate why for the crowd. All you've done so far is shout at clouds. Feel free to point at me and say that I'm "getting on board with the government" - odd since our government's current form (form of: Joe Biden's government) is one I almost wholly disagree with, top to bottom - to any casual observer though, it is you who is not engaging with the facts. The Big Lebowski GIF is funny and cute (and sometimes appropriate) but in this context it actually does constitute failure to engage with the argument - which is frankly a very "liberal" thing to do. So I'll leave you with this: You need to answer why Russia would agree that there would be no limits to NATO's expansion and also agree with the proposition that all nations should be free to form whatever alliances they want, while simultaneously explaining why NATO expansion constitutes provocation. I'll leave that as homework. Seems challenging to me, but that's the corner you've painted yourself into.

@BashiChuni, it's like you don't listen dude. That, or you're just fact-immune. Your argument rests on this presupposition that "buh we provoked Putin". As laid out for you back in September, this is not the case. But, to humor this argument, even if it was hypothetically true, that does not justify Putin invading an independent third-party nation. Your argument is without merit. How you can literally not see how he has used this meme as a pretext for something he wanted to do anyway is baffling. I have to assume you are being intentionally dense in order to frustrate other posters on this board. "NATO expansion became an excuse post facto..." for Russian militarism and autocracy. "The ability of countries to determine their own foreign policy and their alliances, is written into the UN Charter...written into the 1975 Helsinki act...written into the 1990 charter of Paris for a new Europe...written into the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act...Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Moscow signed the UN Charter, it signed the Helsinki final act...signed the NATO-Russia founding act that places no limits on NATO expansion..." etc, etc. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Get on board dude. You spouting Russian propaganda is not a good look for someone who represents themselves as a military officer.

This is an internet message board used to exchange ideas / thoughts; let's not avoid the subject by trying to come up with a fully fleshed-out, 40000-page tax code that addresses all your nitpicks. I think my broader point is clear. There is a sizable portion of this country that provides no input into the coffers, yet is gaining an increasing share of political power and is able to exercise say over how money is directed. That is moral hazard, and should not be a thing.

Sorry, should have been more specific. Income taxes.

The real solution is to limit voting rights to people who pay taxes. No skin in the game is the root cause of the out-of-control moral hazard we are currently mired in. I don't think there is a way out of this until you get rid of that systemic misalignment. Said another way: there's likely no way out.

We certainly do need more soldiers in elected office. Just not more like him.

Thanks for your service, now F off.

It's almost, almost, as if this entire thing were entirely predictable! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strange_Death_of_Europe

Reality is bending so hard right now. Working at the Babylon Bee has got to be one of the toughest journalism beats there is.

It's absolutely abominable. Unforgivable. The most unbelievable part is that he has to wake up everyday and decide to continue denying her existence.

You sound like you've got the attitude part wired - so good for you. 1. Well no F-somethings, but that said, it depends on what gets written on your form 8s, etc. You could still fly single-seat, depending on what gets written on your form 8s, etc. 2. You should probably already have some sense of whether they were going to take your wings. Why are you asking the question? Did something (or multiple things) happen during your course that makes them think you should be a pilot at all? Or did you just get the vibe that they didn't think fighters were your jam? If it was the latter, you'll keep your wings. My sense of FEBs is that they are a formal process that recommends what they've been recommended to do... 3. If you get to keep flying, you'll be fine. I know someone who washed out of F-15s (post B-course, post MQT), and is now a weapons' officers on another platform. Shit happens, but your attitude will carry you. Own your f-ups, and move on with your life - you will absolutely be fine. I promise you, flying something else besides a fighter can be every bit as rewarding, and more so, than flying a fighter. It's your attitude that will make the difference. I'm sure it sucks, but try not to dwell on it longer than necessary. Once you start your next B-course, don't look back.

The "trans" issue breaks down along two broad categories: (1) People who are either mentally ill or who are suffering from extreme emotional trauma. (2) People who have a fetish to be seen as or to become a facsimile of the opposite sex. Those in category (1) have no business receiving hormones or surgery to treat their issue. It's inappropriate regardless of how old they are or if they are able to mimic the act of giving consent. These people cannot meaningfully consent to surgery that renders body parts non-functional. The only appropriate treatment for people in this category is mental health intervention and counseling. People in category (2) can get surgery and hormones as long as they're 18 and pay for 100% it and all follow-on complications themselves. Insurance should have absolutely nothing to do or say about such optional procedures.

You are so close to bumping into a reasonable take on reality here...soooooo close.

Background? MWS? You have my attention... Of course there's that, too. Didn't even consider the value of that bene.

Do what @brabus said. The mil retirement is worth a lot, so if you can get it, I recommend it. It's inflation protected, not subject to 15.3% payroll tax, and as such is worth a substantial bit more than its apparent paper value.