FLEA

I cant, in recent memory, recall Republicans threatening to end the filibuster. Regardless, as a centrist, my interest is to keep it. I would not approve of it if either party eliminated it. And people who argue to get rid of it tend to be short sighted. When removing it effectively loses elections for you and the other party takes over, how much will you enjoy having their agenda rammed down your throat? Whats the point of passing laws if they will just go away in 2-4 years? The filibuster is an excellent mechanism to ensure laws that are passed are sustainable and won't simply be overturned every time a new party is popular.

That's not true. The filibuster serves am important role to keep bipartisanship. Progressives want to get rid of it so they can ram down a far left agenda while they hold government without any obstacles. The moderate and more experienced democrats know that is a double edged sword. Those reforms would only last as long as the Democrats hold government and then in possibly 4 to 8 years the country would be yo-yo'd the other direction when Republicans did the exact same thing. The majority of Americans sit closer to the middle than the extremes. While an accident to start, the filibuster ended fulfilling an important role of keeping policy centrist or focused on compromise. There are very moderate republicans in Senate. If Democrats can't get 9 of them to cross the isle they are trying to pass an agenda that is too extreme and need to come back to the center.

Whoever made this is phenomenal 😂 Uncle Joe.

So an interesting play is to put Kamala on the supreme court. This allows Joe, or his handlers anyway, to anoint a new golden child while bypassing that sticky mess of democracy via a public election. Especially since Dems hold the house and Senate now and could get a replacement confirmed on their own terms. Then when Joe declines to run in '24 for "health reasons", they have an incumbent VP ready for the ballot. Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

No, the Trump admin did sanction Russia for the pipeline in 2017 and was heavily condemned by the EU for doing so. Further completion was also a major factor in Trump's decision to pull 10K troops out of Germany. (Along with failing to uphold NATO spending and other issues, but NS2 was definitely a key point). Biden immediately reversed that decision before it was implemented and wanted to go for a softer diplomatic approach. Putin was smart enough to realize you don't need to control all of Europe, just Germany. They have the largest population/most money in Europe and the rest of Europe happily submits to their leadership.

Just to pivot the discussion back on topic a bit I've been studying the force rations on Global Power Index for a bit: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.php?country1=ukraine&country2=russia Just some surface level wag analysis shows in many areas, especially in the ground component, Ukraine has a rather adequate force ratio, presuming they are using their time now to fortify and bolster their positions. This is based off of the classical doctrine presumption of a 3-to-1 needed by Russia to avoid heavy casualties. We also have to presume Ukraine has the advantage of being able to use their total force power where Russia will only have the benefit of its south western based and active forces. Its an art not a science but if Ukraine digs in far enough they can hold out long enough to protract Russia into extended conflict, something that would be detrimental for Putin. Where they are severely lacking though, obviously, is air power. With the feet dragging happening in our own admin and NATO on exactly how big a commitment we will put forward, I'm starting to see this as a favorable COA to the policy dick dancers in DC who will want to make a strong military statement to show Biden is not weak but will also want to avoid the perceptions that come with extended ground combat.

No they can specialize. They can specialize in night 1 SEAD, DCA, etc.... I don't care if they specialize but theyre going to specialize in the shit that cost casualties and money, not flying around uncontested and won battlespace delivering an occasional JDAM. This is their country. If they aren't willing to die for it why should I be?

How bout their niche is sustaining some losses the US would otherwise take? I don't care if it guts their defense. Sounds like a Dutch/Belgian problem not a US one.

Once had a Dutch pilot tell me the NL was wasting money on the F-35 when all they needed was newer F-16s. I asked why he thought that and he said the F-35 was so expensive because of the stealth and EW technologies, which is only day 1 stuff for kicking in the door. He said the NL can just wait for the US to do all that and then they can come in week 3-5 and just help with bombing targets. So let me get this straight? The most dangerous and dynamic part of the air campaign to defend Europe should be handled by the US alone? Why? Infuriated me how he said it. 2 weeks later I spoke with a Belgian pilot at another occasion. Exact same sentiment from him. Belgium was wasting money on the F-35 because Belgium shouldn't be fighting the first week of the war.

You know this raises a good point I haven't thought of. In all of these states where governors are sending in the National Guard to augment hospitals.... are those patients still being billed? The insurance? Etc... Hopefully the hospitals are required to cap profits if they are receiving said augmentation.....

“The improvement was due to a slight increase in production coupled with successful retention efforts,” Air Force spokesperson Capt. Patrick Gargan told FLYING. “FY21 undergraduate pilot training production was 1,381, up from 1,263 in FY20, despite COVID-19 continuing to impact production. The Air Force is working diligently to meet the needs of both its Airmen and those of the Air Force.” Man, apparently COVID was a successful retention effort.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'm not an expert but one of my ROTC instructors was a former warrant and I remember him explaining. I didnt realize they do get a commission at W-2 though. So then what's the point in distinction? Why not just promote W-1 to O-1? Nevermind, this has nothing to do with me getting promoted from O-4 to Mr. which is the only promotion I'm on this thread for.

I believe they gain their authority through a warrant which is different than a commission. They are similar but a warrant has limited conditions and outlines specific limits to their authority. Commissioned officers can hold additional warrants as well. Contracting officers come to mind.

Nope. Not good enough. We are not going to outrage over a dozen shootings of unarmed individuals resisting arrest and then decide to not outrage over a person who happens to be of the opposite political end also being killed in another likely unjustified shooting. That's not justice. Everyone needs to be treated equally under the law. Not just people from our preferred political demographic.

I have some serious concerns that Babbit shooting wasn't investigated seriously due to political partisanship, which is a shame.

It makes you a better officer I know that much. People can gripe on it as much as they want but the truth is, not many Generals out there engineering aircraft systems and designing parts. Rather, most of them are incredibly smart on the geopolitical nuances of several regions where a background in anthropology, sociology, criminal justice, etc.... Introduced them to abstract concepts used to identify cultural friction with a high probability to lead to violence. Point is, for the AF, a degree is a no brainer. For the airlines, I'm not certain. But up until now I suppose the hiring environment allowed them to be very picky. That said, let's not pretend military pilots were handed a golden platter. The military choice was open to everyone bar a few with medical issues and it wasn't picked for some reason are another. Perhaps they simply weren't competitive, I don't know. Realize though, a significant population of pilots in the military still accrue student loan debt. I had $50K entering the AF. Additionally most military pilots are not multi engine fixed wing pilots leaving the military. The majority are Army/Navy rotary dudes. And of course we could talk about the obvious as well, the implication that you could have to go to war for all of that training. So I would say holistically it's a fair trade off.

Didn't Delta just hire their youngest pilot ever this year? He was like 23 years old? I think I saw it in the news.

In short, female was allowed to "quit" at several events, including a pool event and a land navigation event, but was readmitted to training each time. Additionally, she slandered the ST community on several occasions by decrying the standards as unreasonable and concluding that those upholding them were doing so out of misogyny. Furthermore, she was offered exclusive assignments to continue training, in some sort of weird barter, including placement in a highly selective unit that has additional screening processes and is normally only available to seasoned special tactics members. Additionally, she had exclusive access to the AFSOC chain of command including the training wing commander, and AFSOC senior staff. Lastly, in between her training failures, she was allowed a prestigious job as a special advisor to Gen Slife, (the above poster) where she was apparently given jurisdiction to adjust training standards for the ST community, despite the fact she was not a graduated STO at this point and never made the standards. Finally, she was allowed an appeal to her course completion status that has once again reopened her training status, and had allowed her to restart the pipeline, after she adjusted all of the training standards coming off the staff.... Basically she was allowed to adjust the bar to something she knew she could hit and then readmitted to training. If the allegations are true.... It does not look pretty. But the undertone is that senior leaders are trying to change norms in the community to make quitting acceptable, and then allow someone to be trained to hit a lower bar. The bars were gamed to be lowered based on weak arguments for mission accomplishment and the requirement that candidates possess the mental fortitude to take on extreme task without quitting is being removed from the culture.

I don't know why Fauci isnt fired yet to be honest. That would go a long way to restoring trust. The dude is terrible at his job. How many unfilled promises has he made about when the pandemic would be over? I'm sure he was a very smart infectious disease researcher at one point in his career but he seems like the type of person that is promoted to policy maker and fails to understand the nuances that go with being a leader in that type of position vs just being an expert in your field. Always under promise and over deliver, not the other way around. Could you imagine the complete distrust and backlash that would occur if Austin promised US troops we would avoid war with Russia this year, and then a few weeks from now we end up in the Ukraine? His credibility would be shot. That's why despite however unlikely it is, we continue to tell people to prepare and be ready. The message from the beginning of the pandemic should have been consistent. "Americans should be prepared to live with social distancing for a few years but we will do everything possible to end the pandemic as soon as possible." Instead we got remarks like "2 weeks to flatten the curve" and "we will be back to normal life in the fall." Fauci is terrible because he doesn't understand the #1 rule of BO.net. Never pass up an opportunity to stfu. And everytime he says something, nature has its way and makes him look like an ass. The other thing that would go a long way is a small but simple legislation that guarantees future research on vaccine long term side effects by providing grant money, and then a crises fund to deal with any uncovered side effects. The research is small beans only in the few million dollars. The crises fund would take a bit more but if the vaccine is as safe as they say, which I predict it is, that bill could be earmarked to revest that money after 10 years.

I think an important thing we need to recognize the move the argument forward is weather or not the belief is genuine is irrelevant. The Air Force has already recognized in almost EVERY religious waiver that the belief is genuine. Weather or not that is true is irrelevant now. The only point to be argued is weather the Air Force's reason for denying the waiver, operational readiness, is essential enough to deny a reasonable accommodation.

Lol, I don't think it's as contemptible as your hubris. You realize scientific atheism is a religion right? Anthropological definition below. Your contempt isn't at religion it's at authoritarianism which has allowed individuals or groups to universally enforce a moral code across a population schema without checks and balances. Ironically the push for a vaccine mandate is a turn toward just that sort of authoritarianism that has allowed that to happen. "Religion is a pattern of beliefs, values, and actions that are acquired by members of a group. Religion constitutes an ordered system of meanings, beliefs, and values that define the place of human beings in the world."

I don't think thats quite on point. It's standard in research to recommend future research based off analysis of your study plus literature gaps. Author is literally stating "long term outcomes" warrants future nomination for research. Those nominations are important because they can be used to solicit funding etc.... "Six studies conducted on myocarditis recommend further analysis on the long term outcomes of myocarditis patients who recovered from COVID-19."

Some more context to Prozac's remark for those new to NATO; One of the key requirements of NATO membership is you have to have definite borders with no territorial disputes. When you recognize Russia does not want Ukraine to be a member and that continuous incursions cause territorial disputes, you sort of understand why Russia keeps instigating flare ups. Its the same thing with Georgia.

There's a Naval Post Graduate School professor who is a former KC-135 pilot, he also has a really good lecture on this topic. Wish I could remember his name.

They don't have to update the policy if there is concern. Have you ever staffed a memo like this? The attorneys just provide an opinion, and then in something contentious like this, they will also investigate how legally defensible they think a policy might be. Sometimes they'll tell you the policy might be difficult to defend but you can implement it anyway because by the time it takes to litigate you may already meet intent through compliance. It's much more complicated than "a JAG says it's ok" and even if the JAG gives sound or unsound legal advice, it doesn't absolve a commander of his decision. For example, I'm 99% certain there was probably a JAG in the TOC when an order was given to pre-judiciously off a US citizen, but you saw how well that one aged. Bottom line, the JAG doesn't make an order legal. He just offers his best legal advice. The legality of an order has to be determined by a court. So knowing all of this, I have to examine the context. The DoD JAG that reviewed this has probably been all over the military. He is not a specialist and has worked every aspect of law as it pertains to the AF. His expertise on pharmesuiticals is probably shallow. He needs to defend that policy now against a team of civil attorneys who are experts in medical malpractice, civil liberties, pharmesuiticals, etc... He may win, there is a good chance he will. But ultimately it's up to a court to decide. Put another way, there is also a team of attorneys that have reviewed this, and they do believe the DoD should be concerned about losing.