Pooter

That is the going theory. FBI hasn't yet released what was found in the raid. 1) would that make it okay? 2) I actually kindof doubt it. Looking from the outside-in those administrations seemed to have their shit far more in a sock than the trump camp. Also probably a better general respect for national security and classification procedures. There are literally insider accounts of trump attempting to flush documents down WH toilets.

Some hypocrisy In light of recent events.. The "lock her up" crowd suddenly not caring at all about mishandling of classified documents. The "but her emails" crowd suddenly caring so much about mishandling of classified documents. It's wild that people are so mentally broken by political polarization they can't even recognize a standard and apply it equally. Either classified documents matter or they don't.

Yeah I'm selling this one, beware it's appreciated since I bought it. I won't take a cent under $269,696. alternatively.. you could be more specific about what you're looking for

I saw someone shit on the sidewalk within 3 hrs of arriving in SF earlier this year. I was in LA for an overnight stay 2 years ago and saw more homeless people in 24 hours than I have seen cumulatively in the rest of my entire life including many years living in other major cities. There are very nice parts of California. But those places are either very far from the cities, or near the cities and prohibitively expensive

Specifically relating to the green new deal: Policy: spending massive sums of taxpayer money to achieve climate equity. The idea being that climate change "disproportionally affects people of color and marginalized communities" (Read the bill it's in there) so we have to dump truckloads of government cash into said communities and green energy initiatives to achieve equity. Result: -Skyrocketing energy costs making us uncompetitive with China, while also not solving the worldwide carbon emissions problem. -Higher inflation due to government spending/skewing of the energy market -Increased reliance on foreign oil. (How's that working out for Europe right now?) -Increased outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to countries without garbage climate policy. So I've given you a few examples, care to expand on why you think her policies won't empirically hurt the economy while also doing nothing to solve climate change?

Do the pre course workbook. You'll have a pre-test (grade doesn't matter) which will kick everyone's ass other than the nerdiest of MAF guys. Similar but not identical test on the last day and you must get a passing grade. Vast majority of the pre course workbook directly related to pre and post test questions so don't just chaff it off. As an RPA guy there will be a ton of gee whiz info for you that isn't super applicable which was the same for a lot of caf dudes. But if you have a genuine interest in aviation it's all good stuff to know and the course was taught really well.

Because every wild left fringe idea right now will be a mainstream democrat view in 5 years, and probably policy soon thereafter. The constant crusade to be ever more progressive dictates that they always have to out-do their past selves to continue to attain virtue. AOC is the foreshadowing of where the left is going to try to drag the Overton window. So maybe it's worth debating the garbage ideas now, before they take hold and cause real damage. Maybe right now we can chalk up The green new deal and other AOC proposed crap as some pie in the sky nonsense from a juvenile queens bartender/tik tok star. But come find me in five years when we've tanked the economy (further) in the quest for a racially equitable climate justice utopia. Then it will be very apparent exactly which of her policy prescriptions negatively affect you personally.

I don't buy that this is some sort of "in case of war break glass" test. Please describe to me a scenario where you are short a bunch of copilots (due to attrition or some kind of attack) where you're not also short on ACs, IPs, and airframes. I'll wait. This is how you socialize a garbage idea you know no one will sign off on for its own merits. You pitch it as some newfangled combat contingency test, get the waiver passed, and then implement it by precedent years after the original detractors are long gone. Call me a conspiracy theorist but what do you think is the air force's more pressing problem: a) pilot shortage or b) near peer shooting war where we somehow have a bunch of perfectly functional -46s laying around with no one to fly them

I think in normal normal ops, no it would not be crazy to fly with a single pilot. Lots of automation and low task loads when things are going completely standard. I would guess this holds for most crewed aircraft in benign situations. The issue is when the situation becomes not benign. When nonstandard things / EPs / mission changes start happening now you have a single brain having to manage a very large very complex aircraft and deal with those externalities as well.

Fair enough. I guess for that kind of money you'll get some takers. I still don't see money as the root cause though. Air Force officer pay is a comfortable living. It's not competitive with the airlines obviously, but I know countless Air Force pilots who find military flying far more rewarding would happily ride it out to 20 if they could avoid 2 things: 1) being forced to move/deploy somewhere shitty 2) queep And number 1 continues to ratchet up in importance as you get older because eventually you have a family to worry about. Why do you think the guard has such great retention? Spoiler: it's not the money. 90% of guard pilots are making bank from the airlines anyway and they choose to come back and fly for pennies on the dollar for the Air Force. It's because they're insulated from being forced to move and from queep.

.. not that many people. I don't know a single one. I know dozens of commercial pilots. Maybe that appeals to a handful of people extremely motivated by combat ops in the Middle East but that is the exception not the rule. Long term retention on a mass scale in the conus is what I'm talking about. We're not losing experienced pilots in droves to the Middle East contractor mafia in any significant numbers.

Agreed, but Ive also never seen the topic brought up by military leaders in any congressional forum ever. The idea that locations impact retention is not in congressional calculus at all.

Pile on: the other side of the shithole locations coin is that the people living in nice places are terrified of being forced to PCS to a shithole, so they avoid signing onto anything that might impact control of their own destiny.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: base locations are the largest barrier to Air Force retention. Laughlin can't even retain geriatric sim instructors reliving their 80's glory days.. never mind young CFII candidates wanting to travel, make money, and maybe even have a social life. This will crash and burn just like countless other efforts have, because they continually fail to address the root cause. location location location I'd love to see a study done on the 7 day opt rate for active duty guys getting assignments to places like Laughlin, cannon, holloman etc... But I doubt we'll ever see that. It might actually make the Air Force confront a real cause for the retention issue: the Air Force has systematically closed bases in good locations, and no matter how cool the job, people do not want to live in shitholes.

Well maybe your memory is bad because the UCMJ is covered at the academy, rotc, and OTS.. of note the concept of lawful orders. You are also introduced to the possibility of random drug testing and prohibitions on otherwise perfectly legal substances like certain pre-workouts and hemp products. Presumably you also had to pass dodmerb and flight physicals at some point. Deployments and readiness requirements should also not be foreign concepts by the time you commission. No one is asking you to surrender all of your rights. But I do not buy the argument you commissioned under the impression that joining the military would have no impacts on your medical requirements.

"Back in the before times" certain workplaces still had health rules and you also had the god-given right as an American to not volunteer for the military or any other job with health requirements you don't like. As far as I know we haven't drafted anyone since Vietnam, so you voluntarily signed on to the host of rules the military imposes on its members above and beyond the civilian population. Exactly. I'm not aware of any time in recent military history where personal interpretations of cdc guidance, drinking buddies, or friends had any bearing on military medical requirements. Maybe clergy to a very tiny extent. Civilian world is a whole different discussion. But military members complaining about the rules they voluntarily subjected themselves to is hilarious stupidity.

@Lord Ratner shack. Drawing conclusions from our decades of economic tampering is about as logically sound as running a science experiment with zero control group. If you fuck with every variable you don't get to pretend to know causal relationships between those variables.

My issue here is that conservatives preach responsible family planning to avoid unwanted pregnancies while simultaneously trying to ban many of the tools that enable responsible family planning.

Well if life begins at conception (sperm fertilizing and egg) and you use birth control methods that.. make it impossible for the fertilized egg (which is definitely a full human) to attach to the uterine wall.. some states with particularly backwards trigger laws may soon consider you a murderer.

Guys I think I figured it out. Here's how you get consensus on the abortion issue. Conservatives ask yourself two questions: Q1: who predominantly is getting abortions? Answer: liberals Q2: what political affiliation would that baby likely have grown up to be? Answer: liberal So basically just pitch abortion as a super early stage voter suppression scheme. #abortthelibs

That's at least movement in the right direction.

I'm absolutely arguing in good faith. Im asking if we have considered the full ramifications of considering a 1 week zygote a full human life. Of course I agree miscarriages are usually natural and a part of life, and that they aren't intentional like abortions are. But if you say it's legally a full blown human, you don't just get to miscarry, say "oh well," and try again next time. A human being just lost their life so we need to figure out what happened and if there was negligence involved. Just like what would happen if you or I died. That's the problem with putting assertions like "life begins at conception" into law. It takes you to weird places really quickly. It's a nice thing to say to claim moral high ground and use to control people, but there is a fuck ton of baggage that comes along with that belief that hasn't been addressed at all. It also doesn't hold water when conservatives say "why are liberals so mad, repealing roe just gives the decision back to the states?" If you legit believe any abortion is murder, you shouldn't be okay with potentially legalized murder on a state by state basis.

Honestly not sure. And that's a great debate to have. I'm simply asking for some logical consistency. If a zygote is a fully fledged human, then abortion is clearly murder and a miscarriage is at the very least a horrible tragedy and at most manslaughter or murder as well. There are also very easy bipartisan ways to improve pre-natal care to make concrete improvements in miscarriage rates. Stopping both abortions and miscarriages should be important if you truly believe they are a full human life. But If the only child deaths you're concerned about are the ones that let you tell the dirty liberal sexual deviants what to do, maybe you're not actually concerned about child deaths. Another note on logical consistency: the people who say gun bans dont stop criminals from getting guns.. advocating for abortion bans 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

I'm not assuming everyone believes the same as me. I'm applying existing laws and societal norms to the very absurd supposition that a 1 week old zygote should legally be considered an alive human being.

Except for the position, cgo, and jr cgo strats which are meaningless, the flight strats that are meaningless, the IDE push statements that are meaningless, the fact that through dumb shell games and timing up to 3-4 people can hold the same strat at once, the fact that every base writes OPRs a little differently, and the meaningless platitudes that make your average line flyer sound like a combo between John Boyd and Robin olds. Oh and you are stratted against captains that could potentially be 5 years younger than you. And we're told masters status is masked till O-6 boards.. oh wait never mind the wing king can see it and will push you accordingly. I'm not upset, I made the majors list and my line number is about where I expected. Ive been an exec and seen how the sausage is made, and I like to think I'm decent at reading the tea leaves. But for anyone outside the top 10% you have to sift through a literal mountain of shit to get an accurate picture of where you stand. This is one of many reasons the Air Force has retention issues. We spend 8 years sugarcoating and obfuscating people's performance and then wonder why they're surprised when their board results aren't what they expected.