sherpa

I fully agree. I simply can't believe that a woman who has never done a single thing other than come from an area destroyed by policies she agrees with, then gets on the national stage simply by genetics, then fails at that, in so obvious a manner that nobody is denying it, achieves the nomination of her party. She supports failed policies and opposes successful portions of our nation. To top it off, she has absolutely no experience in the matters that matter most, and is completely incapable of expressing herself in any manner that indicates any knowledge of any important subject. It is said that we get the gov we deserve.

Bloom Energy. Symbol BE. Provides solid oxide fuel cells that use either natural gas or hydrogen to provide reliable, on site electricity. Cost competitive with utility companies. Far more reliable. Much "greener."

You have move the goalposts to Earendel. I'll save you the google. It is the furthest star detected from Hubble. You started out by stating that the military should eliminate levels in the enlisted ranks. You end up asking if every single employee, DOD or civilian included, is necessary. I don't know a thing about Walz, and I never will, but the US relies on the National Guard far more than it used to, but only those who show up. Vance's active duty was certainly of value, or that wouldn't have been a position. Either way, the question is silly. I remember sitting five minute alert in a fighter on an aircraft carrier in waters that were in "harms way." We would have two or three fully armed during periods where we weren't operating normal cycles. All weapons ready, all we had to do was start and launch. Never launched because no threat was presented. To use your phraseology, "from a purely business perspective," that added no value to the defense of the United States. Still.....It sure made the 5000 sailors on the carrier and the entire task force rest a bit easier.

I aver that this is a particularly uninformed and ignorant comment. The strength of the US military, and it is extremely noteworthy in the gross failure of the Russian military lies in four components. 1. The professional non commissioned officer capability, which is what you have suggested needs to be changed. No other non NATO military puts so much on, and is so rewarded by its NCO's, from about the E-4 to E-8 level. This is being magnified by 1000 by the Russian failure in Ukraine, and is indisputable. 2. Officer skills. 3. Training. Nobody trains like the US military, from top to bottom. 4. Technology, which in a way is related to 1 and 2. NCO's and senior enlisted, as well as officers determine what is needed and are largely listened to, resulting in weapons, systems and training that actually work and allow independent judgement in the heat of battle. Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it.

I think they kind of know what they are doing.

I was in a hotel in Buenos Aires years ago when six members of the Brazil junior national women's volleyball team got on the elevator with me. couldn't believe it. I had selected my floor (5, I believe). When one of them selected 7, I changed to 10. Life altering, unforgettable. In retrospect, should have hit the emergency stop.

So you were in a restaurant is "North East PA, which is in the northwest of PA." Does what you post even make sense to you? Just to save time, regarding your accusation re Reagan deficits, do you remember how Congress used to work. You know, when we actually had a budget submitted and approved? If not, I'll remind you of Reagan's attempt to get a line item veto to handle what are now called "earmarks" which are nothing more than getting the taxpayer to pay for stupid expenditures that added to the budget. Remember any of that?

A horrible president. I have no issue with his post presidency, although the Carter election verification thing is total bull####, (know what they do to proclaim credibility?), like the rest of his legacy, but he was a HORRIBLE president. Simply horrible.

Volker was Volker. Carter deserves no credit for that. What he was was a lying, useless, disingenuous phony, dislike by the American people, hated by the military and his own Secret Service group, who saw him for what he was.

Pure nonsense. I notice you mentioned nothing about "Carters wars," whatever that means, but his gross failure in the hostage rescue attempt is noteworthy. The Reagan/Volker response to the Carter "misery index," (inflation plus interest rates), is what set the stage for the Clinton results. Carter was useless. Despised by the military. An economic disaster. A phony who was disliked by his own Secret Service people. Just a useless goof.

This isn't a competition. I have no problem with opposing views. What I do comment on is when people express views, specifically suggesting political influence without regard or knowledge, on items I am familiar with. I don't enjoy look at me stuff. I had been here for ten years before ever mentioning my experience in this, and only did so when someone here accused me of being a coward. I casually mentioned that I had over 300 carrier landings, and while that doesn't mark anything, it does kind of suggest you are not a "coward." I am a topgun grnduate and served as an adversary instructor, teaching US Navy, Air Force pilots air combat, specifically against Russian tactics. My issue with this is that an airplane, the F-16 in this case, is not the determining factor. The links provided, always sourced by people who didn't do this for a living, erroneously place aircraft capability as the determining factor, and that is nonsense. It is always about training, coordination and mutual contribution that determines the outcome. The F-16 is a great airplane. I have fought many engagements against it. Lethal when flown in the right environment. The claim that it can be flown well after four months of training is simply not true. If it flies within/under the Russian SAM defenses, it will not go well. If it fights against Russian fighters that are outside that protection, it could go very well, with AMRAAM. Anyway, the post is long enough, but I want to bring up one example, from my experience. When the Saudis bought the F-15, they opted to contract for training against US adversaries. I did that. They were totally useless. Total waste of time. THE F-15 is a tremendous air superiority platform, totally wasted on them. Anyway, the bottom line assessment of the Ukraine thing brings one point home, without doubt. The Russian Air Force, with all it's advanced equipment, has been exposed as a failure. Using a small number of F-16's might help, but the battle is on the ground for now. If the Ukrainians were able to get Russian ground forces outside of their SAM protection umbrella, using the F-16 in an air-ground mode would be an extremely important development, because it will slaughter Russian ground troops.

Yes to the first premise. Not the second, though I have flown against it's earlier derivatives, and am quite familiar with it. I am also very familiar with Amraam and Russian derivatives.

I didn't miss it. I don't miss things. The F-16's do not provide air superiority. The only thing that gives them an edge is the total ineptness of the Russian Air Force.

Ten F-16's and a few Patriot batteries in no way provide "air superiority."

A dumb vector. People serve given the options at the time, what they are offered, and where they are in their life. There is nothing wrong, and nothing bad about either individual's service. That tactic should be given up.

I can't stand the guy, but this claim is a losing strategy. He didn't achieve his final enlisted rank because he failed to complete course requirements. He was promoted to it. Plenty of other nonsense in his resume to keep this guy away from policy decisions.

I trust people I trust.

What investments? I'm not sure what your are suggesting. I am averring that the area of those riots is worth much, much less than it once was, and that verdict has been given by those who have skin in the game.

The area of those riots has seen property values decrease precipitiously. The market is reality. Media nonsense is just that.

My brother in law is a partner in a wealth management firm there. They do a lot of Twins/Vikings accounts, and were asked to do the Prince estate, which they declined because it was so screwed up that they knew it would take incredible time and court issues. He has a different view than what is expressed above. Completely different.

Assure me? Go ahead. Then you ask, having not mentioned a single thing, if I "agree with them." The woman is an idiot, with horrible policy disclosures who would never be elected in any precinct other than the Bay Area. And that claim doesn't begin to describe her uselessness in foreign relations or the military.

She hasn't done a freakin' thing in any of those roles, except whiff on the border and try to hide from it. Useless Senator. Useless, actually worse, DA. Stupid as the day is long.

And Kamala Harris is none of that. A failed candidate. A nut cut from the San Francisco Democrat idiocy. Can't speak. Can't articulate basic themes. Has no basic knowledge of very important national interests, at home and abroad. Absolutely no knowledge/ experience in dealing with the military or anything related to that. That's just what she doesn't have. What she does "have" at least by her expressed views, is even worse. Capital gains. Corporate tax rates. Estate taxes. Goodness. Simply the least informed, worst candidate ever.

I am extremely familiar with the Fed. There is nearly always conflict between the executive and the independant fed. Fed governors and ex governors are interviewed constantly. It's one of the few things left that works.

No offense, but absolutely not true. The independant Fed and the Supreme Court have proven remarkably capable of not bowing to political influence. Regan vs Paul Volker is the best example. Presidents are always going to want lower rates, but the Fed has a dual mandate, and neither of those goals is political.