Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The A-10 is tougher than most other aircraft. Hell it's arguably the toughest aircraft flying in the sky period right now with the only possible exception of the Su-25.
And even then it really should be retired due to it's age. It just fills a totally unique role that's very much needed in the current war against insurgents.
Oh really when?It's also far too slow to be of much use outside the context of COIN ops, despite all the 'muh BRRRT', 'muh aluminium bathtub', and 'muh virtually-nonexistent Rudel design input'. The life of the A-10 fleet in Europe in the event of a Soviet offensive was estimated by NATO planners as 3 days, and that was in the 1980s.
It's just an ill-conceived meme aircraft in general. 'Let's have an aircraft whose low-and-slow attack profile takes it through the engagement envelopes of AAA and SAMs' 'Gee, what a fine idea!'. Even in Desert Storm F-16s were less risky.
edited 16th Feb '16 4:40:55 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiWhat's brt?
Is It Something You Eat?
edited 16th Feb '16 5:07:54 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.![]()
Not sure if joking or serious. In case the latter:
The A-10 Warthog is pretty much an experiment in "how big a Gatling gun can we stick on a plane and still have it able to fly?" The answer, it turns out, is pretty damn big. Unfortunately, it's slow as molasses. The BRRRRT references come from the sound the Gatling makes as it's fired; it sounds EXACTLY like the world's biggest fart being ripped.
Forward, boys! For God's sake, forward!The A-10 is staying because the Army wants to keep it, because it's a good plane for what the Army needs done. Therefore, retiring it would be a bad idea unless we have something better for said mission - and honestly, for COIN and CAS, we don't need new-generation stealth craft.
The F-35, meanwhile, is an example of the Sunk Cost Fallacy in action. We have enough interceptors for the foreseeable future (the Raptor, program killed as it is), we have enough fighters for the expected missions we'll need to face in the next decade, and I said that the F-35 should have been killed long ago - the US should have bought this generation's fighters from Europe, and damned with American exceptionalism and Not Made Here.
Well, there is no way in hell the US is giving the Euros the schematics and compositions of the EM absorbent paintings used in the B-2, F-22 and F-35 so not everything can be produced abroad.
Besides the US is the only country on Earth that actively fields VLO aircraft with the other countries either having prototypes, test units or mock ups.
Inter arma enim silent legesThe US has tried to retire the A-10 like 15 times and use multirole aircraft but they just suck at the flying Gatling Gun role that is needed on today's battlefield. The airforce said year it would take 15 years to actually design a modern flying Gatling Gun.
People just forget how good low speed dive bombers like it actually are.
edited 17th Feb '16 2:39:31 AM by Memers
@Serious or joking: I present my ignorance in a humourous way.
Well, this is all very interesting and curious, but I think it belongs to the Military Thread.
I wondery why people can't seem to summon this kind of interest for, say, dams. Or bridges. Or trains.
edited 17th Feb '16 2:47:02 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.It's not down to states, it's down to the number of delegates, states awards delegates in a variety of ways (generally a proportional amount with a minimum percentage needed to get any) but generally once one candidate has what's seen as an unbreakable lead others will drop out and the delegates will all go to the winner.
That makes me wonder actually, at least some of the republicans who've dropped out had delegates, who do they go to now?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranDoing a bit more digging I've found that it varies between not only states but also the parties. So for the Dems all states must award delegates promotionaly, while for the Republicans the systems vary. On top of that the number of delegates that are party officials varies, with the Republicans it's three top officials from each state or territory, while for the Dems representatives, senators, governors, DNC members and "distinguished party leaders" are all super delegates (meaning that Bernie gets to vote for himself and Hillary gets a vote from Bill).
Still basic numbers, for the Republican nomination it takes 1,144 delegates to win and for the Dem nomination it takes 2,382 delegates to win (though that could change a little due to how the Dem super delegate number can change).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI can't remember, did we discuss Cruz' attempt to strip Americans of citizenship without evidence
? Is this a case of if he can't be American, neither will anyone else? Excerpt quoted.
This means that the government cannot strip Americans of their citizenship without their consent — no matter how heinous their offense. "The government must establish that the individual knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally relinquished his right," notes Georgetown University's David Cole, "just as courts must establish that an individual knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally waived his trial rights before accepting a guilty plea."
But what the government can do is intercept ISIS agents when they try and re-enter the country, charge them with treason, sedition, or any number of other crimes, obtain a conviction, and put them away for a long time. The government can even potentially execute them. After a conviction — and only after that — Uncle Sam can launch a separate civil expatriation review to show that the offender intended to relinquish his or her citizenship, but with a lower evidentiary bar than the original conviction. Under current law, these offenses include such acts as bearing arms against the United States and incitement to rebellion.
Cruz's bill would change two things:
1. It would authorize the government to revoke citizenship rights without a court conviction.
2. It would also expand the list of expatriatable offenses to include "training" and "material assistance" to terrorist groups without defining either of those terms.
<snip>
The scariest part of the bill is that without due process or a trial or the presumption of innocence, many innocent Americans would be condemned without having any opportunity to refute the evidence against them. The government can accuse them of whatever it wants on whatever grounds it likes without challenge. This is the kind of thing that passes for justice in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
But also troubling is that the government could use its citizenship-stripping powers to persecute political actions that go against standing government policy. If merely offering "material assistance" is the standard, then what is to stop the government from revoking the citizenship of black Muslim Americans who distribute pro-Hamas material? Or Irish Americans who hand out pro-Irish Republican Army pamphlets? Both outfits are or have been on the government's terrorist list.

That's not "The point stands". Do you hear yourself? "We need this new plane because all of our old ones are falling apart. Well, except for this one and this other one and this other one."
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"