sherpa

You ever lived in the Bay area? You know what it's like being a Democrat running for office there? I'm guessing you don't. She is an idiot from a place that has been trashed by her views, at least the ones she has supported in her career. Tomorrow, based on what she has been told, those views could all change, as they have in the last two weeks. She is a useless moron.

Did nothing. Successful at nothing. Bad at everything, including thinking and speaking. No resume. No original thought. Couldn't make it to the starting point as a candidate. Part of a history of a trashed area that is to be avoided at all cost if you care to do business. Hidden in the basement for three years as VP because she was despised and her party didn't want her exposed. Ya. She'll be fine.

Silly? Really? She is expressing completely different views than she did in her first grossly failed candidacy. Ban fracking. Open the borders. Idiotic, destructive tax proposals. Impossible to fund health care. Idiotic opposition to health care choices. She is like you. She is a windsock, nothing more, but she is also really stupid. Whatever the party tells her.

I don't have any enthusiasm regarding her. I don't think she is capable of rational independent thought. I think she will be driven by the party, as she has clearly showed she is since he was installed. She is a zero talent with zero skills to provide. She has never done anything well, and is a pathetic communicator.

I wish there was some small chance he got replaced, but that isn't going to happen. Still, Harris is completely incompetent, has never had any success doing anything, has been installed by by the party, and is now in black out mode while she responds to what party officials are telling her her "new" positions are. Not seen anything like this, but she is a useless knucklehead.

She isn't "annoying." She is insufferable. When I was in POW school, SERE for those in the know, I was in a box for two nights, getting alternately interrogated and freezing. They played this loud Soviet music all night long to torture us. She is worse. Trump is un-listenable. She is throw a bat through your sound source. On induction, we have a four burner cooktop. Love the thing.

That argument was preposterous from day three of their invasion when they got stranded on that highway. That parade of Russian military equipment could have been completely wiped out in 30 minutes by any competent air strike using four attack armed airplanes. The threat of invading a NATO country has been used to justify support, but it is not valid. In my view, the reason to support Ukraine is justified by other arguments. I'm always hopeful, but being invaded and occupied by an enemy is dirt in Putin's eye. Eventually, the Russians will see this and get rid of him, so there is no current path to that.

Coincidentally, I mentioned to my wife that the effect of a Harris win would probably save us money on our electrical bill, as I simply cannot tolerate listening to her for ten seconds. TV/radio off. It doesn't even matter what she says, or that repeated, stupid, senseless, contrived head bobbing. I have some kind of allergy that causes my skin to crawl when she speaks. Anyway, to another item in this thread, we have had an induction cooktop for twelve years and would never go back.

Biden has claimed that he was responsible for the short Colonial Security Agency lines.

Russia is a country in Europe. OK?

In my adult life, as you phrase it, Nixon was quite good, with some personality issues, and George W. Bush isn't nearly as dumb as anyone who would vote for this Dem nominee, or the nominee herself.

There is simply no defense for the Biden debacle here. None. The Trump thing had an out, which would have been triggered. This was the stupidest, most destructive long term thing that Biden has done, or expressed he wanted done or not done, in a lifelong history of being wrong. Constantly wrong. His lecturing of Reagan as he, (Biden), opposed the strategic defense initiative, which having been funded, now results in the best anti missile defenses in the world comes a distant second, but the man is a complete policy failure robot wearing skin. Third would be his opening days warfare against the energy industry, but that gets little play now that he has changed to the point of secret deals with Venezuela that thankfully never came about.

Just sickening on every level, from allegiance to allies, to strategic effects, to military recruitment, to financial responsibility and to just plain common sense. Horrible.

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.