You don’t want that guy. What you want is attention, and he was the last person to give it to you, therefore you think you want him.

Just get dressed up and go to a bar, and you’ll find enough guys who will give you that, without the red flags.

Not military but my understanding is:

Commissioned officer: starts at second lieutenant, can go all the way to lieutenant general, have to go to specialized school (like West Point) to be eligible. Receive their “commission”/assignment directly from president. As the other commenter mentioned, BG is fairly high up.

Each service can have slightly different names for certain positions. And yes they split CO positions into three types, company, field and general, BG is the lowest “general officer”. As to how, you could always ask, but some combination of seniority/achievements. He almost certainly serviced in combat in Afghanistan/iraq as a field officer given the timelines.

Non-commissioned officer: these people joined as rank and file, and got promoted to oversee/command people below them, but didn’t go to specialized school, and can’t rise above sergeant major. So you could have a guy with 20 years of experience commanded by a brand new second lieutenant.

Rank and file: privates and the like.

So speaking as an American, the Indian diaspora here is typically thought of positively, at least in the sense they tend to be responsible members of the community.

Unfortunately, Americans are pretty geopolitically ignorant, and so end up developing views on countries based on the behavior of their American communities.

So I would say most Americans impression of India is “vaguely positive”. This notably includes at least tacit approval from American conservatives, in that Indians are left off their “which minority group are we targeting today” bingo card.

This is probably mutually reinforcing with America’s geopolitical priorities, which is essentially deepening ties with India as a counterbalance to China.

As to your “too proud of your country” comment, obviously as an American I sympathize, but they’re not wrong in that because of your country’s size and growth, India will become more prominent in global affairs.

Unfortunately as you’ve noticed, that leads to some people having an inflated view of themselves. It’s just something you have to live with as a world power.

Anyway, the below article actually answers your question, and overall, generally positive is the answer (but what did you guys do to South Africa though?)

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/08/29/international-views-of-india-and-modi/

Honestly this was true for large parts of USAs history, but that hasn’t been the case for a while now.

In truth our democrat and republicans reps have almost no similar voting history, they vote the opposite of each other on almost every issue.

Below is a good visualization of what I mean. You can see that from the 50’s to the 80’s, there was really quite a bit of voting overlap by the parties, so during that period, you’d be right, both parties could be consider the same or similar.

But for the last 30 years or so, democrats and republicans have had very little overlap on what they vote in favor for. It’s party line votes on almost everything.

So how people can say “both parties are the same”, when they vote the opposite on almost everything is beyond me.

And that’s not even taking into account executive actions, like for example for the last 50 years or so every democrat president has provided contraceptives as part of foreign aid, and every republican has not.

We may not have options in terms of political parties to choose from, which I agree is bad, but saying both parties are the same is to be willfully blind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/a-stunning-visualization-of-our-divided-congress/

What data do you have to say neither of those options are relevant?

“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”

Low cost homes, exactly the ones in rural/historically low income area you described, are the most purchased category of residential real estate.

Also, the downtowns of those areas, which are almost all single story commercial/retail, are exactly the places most in need of walkable, dense development I’m describing, especially if there’s a housing shortage and most of the surrounding areas already have built up residential developments.

So both of those options are actually more relevant for your example then the US as a whole.

https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/

You seem to attribute the housing affordability crisis the last few years to WFH-ers, but isn’t it more fair to say that there are multiple other factors contributing to it?

Not just the post COVID appreciation for housing, but things like historically high percentage of investor owned homes (including corporate and foreign buyers), and historically low building rates compared to projected need, to name a few.

So then the question becomes, which of these should we focus on? For me, that means what gives you the most positives, and least negatives.

Let’s look at three options:

1. Banning corporate and foreign non-occupying homeowners from owning American residential real estate
2. Rezoning low density areas (particularly single story commercial/retail in smaller cities and towns’ downtowns) into vertical dense mixed use residential and commercial/retail development
3. Ending work from home

1 and 2 accomplish our primary goal of reducing home prices across the country, both by increasing supply (1 would too, since those investors would need to sell, increasing supply), and 1 would also reduce demand. 3 does not, because any price reductions in rural areas will be offset by higher rates in urban one

2 also gives us positive secondary benefit of encouraging walkable cities, which leads to health improvements, less traffic, and reduced climate impact. 1 would also increase business investment, encouraging long term growth, if the “money printer” option of buying US residential properties and collecting rent is not available.

3 gives us no positive secondary benefits, and since it does essentially the opposite of 2 in terms of walkability, it also is the only one with a high negative cost.

So pretty clearly that idea is the worst one for solving housing affordability. So why support it when their are other much better options available to accomplish your goal?

Ultimately the best way to meet people, and especially to grow and maintain those connections, is to have the same hobbies as them.

Do you like sports? Join an adult league.
Do you like reading? Join a book club. Do you like tabletop games? Use Reddit’s r/LFG, or look for a local meetup group, and find some people there.

Ultimately it’s hard to make new friends when you have nothing to tie you to them long term.

People have set routines, and it can be difficult to have them make time for a stranger initially.

But if you join group doing something you enjoy, you already a part of their lives through that. You also have an easy source of conversation, talking about whatever your joint interest is.