Walter_Sobchak

After spending a year bashing NFL players for engaging in the rather mild form of protest of kneeling during the national anthem, our President now says he is considering a pardon for Mohammad Ali.  Anyone notice the inconsistency here?
 
Also, Ali's conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1971 so there is nothing to pardon, but oh well.

Presidents working out shady deals with Iran is a long standing US tradition!  Remember when Eisenhower had the CIA hire organized crime in Iran to start protests in 1953 to help get the Shah back in power?  Or when Reagan sold them weapons to support the Contras?  Sounds like Obama didn't have good enough operators to get his shady ass deals done right.  

Anyhow, it all comes down to this.  We have a president who is claiming he has the power to pardon himself.  Basically, he is saying that he cannot be held accountable for any crime, that he is above the law.  If you don't see this as fundamentally opposed to the most basic ideals on which the USA is supposed to be based on, I really don't know what to say to you.  We elect presidents, not kings.

I hope he doesn't pardon Rian Johnson for the crime of ruining Star Wars.

Presidents working out shady deals with Iran is a long standing US tradition!  Remember when Eisenhower had the CIA hire organized crime in Iran to start protests in 1953 to help get the Shah back in power?  Or when Reagan sold them weapons to support the Contras?  Sounds like Obama didn't have good enough operators to get his shady ass deals done right.  

Every single one of these is dated Nov 7, 2016.  Apparently it was a hot topic for all of one day.  No wonder I don't remember it.  Looking at these sources, they are not particularly liberal.   Lets go through them.
 
1.  The ABA Journal.  This is the official journal of the American Bar Association.  I'm guessing it does not have a strong political bent other than being pro-lawyer
 
2.  The Telegraph.  Pretty much the paper of record in the UK, generally considered conservative.
 
3. The Wall Street Journal.  Generally pro-business and conservative, very conservative editorial page.
 
4. Quora.com -  this does not even count as a news source.
 
5. Canada Free Press -  I was not familiar with this one, but according to their own description they are "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country."  
 
6. Valuewalk.com - I don't know much about this site but it looks like its mostly business news.  
 
 
I would not call any of these sources "liberal".  To me, it looks like this was a news story that ran for about a day in centrist and conservative media sources and was mostly speculative.  These are not news articles, they are mostly op-ed pieces or legalistic theory-making.

Every single one of these is dated Nov 7, 2016.  Apparently it was a hot topic for all of one day.  No wonder I don't remember it.  Looking at these sources, they are not particularly liberal.   Lets go through them.
 
1.  The ABA Journal.  This is the official journal of the American Bar Association.  I'm guessing it does not have a strong political bent other than being pro-lawyer
 
2.  The Telegraph.  Pretty much the paper of record in the UK, generally considered conservative.
 
3. The Wall Street Journal.  Generally pro-business and conservative, very conservative editorial page.
 
4. Quora.com -  this does not even count as a news source.
 
5. Canada Free Press -  I was not familiar with this one, but according to their own description they are "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country."  
 
6. Valuewalk.com - I don't know much about this site but it looks like its mostly business news.  
 
 
I would not call any of these sources "liberal".  To me, it looks like this was a news story that ran for about a day in centrist and conservative media sources and was mostly speculative.  These are not news articles, they are mostly op-ed pieces or legalistic theory-making.

So some guy's legal blog constitutes "The Left?"  I don't remember anyone talking about Hillary having to pardon herself.  Certainly, I don't remember anyone within her campaign or the Obama administration talking about it.  This is just some lawyer speculating.  Totally different situation than now, where the president is tweeting about it himself.  

Every single one of these is dated Nov 7, 2016.  Apparently it was a hot topic for all of one day.  No wonder I don't remember it.  Looking at these sources, they are not particularly liberal.   Lets go through them.
 
1.  The ABA Journal.  This is the official journal of the American Bar Association.  I'm guessing it does not have a strong political bent other than being pro-lawyer
 
2.  The Telegraph.  Pretty much the paper of record in the UK, generally considered conservative.
 
3. The Wall Street Journal.  Generally pro-business and conservative, very conservative editorial page.
 
4. Quora.com -  this does not even count as a news source.
 
5. Canada Free Press -  I was not familiar with this one, but according to their own description they are "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country."  
 
6. Valuewalk.com - I don't know much about this site but it looks like its mostly business news.  
 
 
I would not call any of these sources "liberal".  To me, it looks like this was a news story that ran for about a day in centrist and conservative media sources and was mostly speculative.  These are not news articles, they are mostly op-ed pieces or legalistic theory-making.

So some guy's legal blog constitutes "The Left?"  I don't remember anyone talking about Hillary having to pardon herself.  Certainly, I don't remember anyone within her campaign or the Obama administration talking about it.  This is just some lawyer speculating.  Totally different situation than now, where the president is tweeting about it himself.  

Now you know how many on the left felt when we had to endure 8 years of Fox news and their ilk making up bullshit controversies over innocuous things that Obama supposedly did.  Remember the scandal of the light brown suit?  Or how about the time he put Dijon mustard on his burger? Or the dreaded terrorist fist jab?  Or the time he introduced a Jobs Act that was held together by (gasp!) a binder clip?  Or when Michelle went sleeveless?  Don't act all shocked and surprised when all of a sudden the "media" start picking on the president you happen to like for silly and stupid shit.  I doubt you were complaining when they did it to the president you didn't like.  
 
 

I don't even know where to begin with this paragraph.  Bush Jr. was most certainly a patriot in the traditional sense of the word.  He was the last president we had who actually served in the US Military in a war.  
 
Your dividing line is awfully convenient for your own pro-trump stance.  You claim that the last four presidents are un-patriotic or unamerican or something.  I suspect that this has less to do with anything their administrations actually did, but rather because all of them have voiced their dislike for Trump.  Then you claim, without a shred of evidence, that all the dead presidents are awesome patriots and would surely support Trump.  Obviously, this is not a provable statement, since these men are all dead.  
 
It's a bit like Trump claiming all dead US servicemen would be happy he is president.  
 
Most people consider putting words into the mouths of dead people to be disrespectful.  
 
 

I think that if the US sells an Abrams to the UK, they should make a special variant powered by 15 6 cylinder Chrysler engines mounted in a three deep "multibank" formation to produce 1500 HP.  As a US taxpayer, I would be willing to vote to give these tanks to the UK as Lend Lease.  We can call it the Abrams M1A4 and the Brits can call it Abrams II.  Gotta keep tradition going, ya know?

I wonder if it was because of Tiger 131 at Bovington? It was the most convenient example of a Tiger tank available for British model makers to use as a source.  And probably once one model was out there, the next company used it as a reference, and so forth and so on.  

I said it was an extremely close election.  How is this not true?  Look at the razor thin margins that Trump won those key swing states.  I'm not talking about California.  I was making a statement of fact.

I don't understand the silver platter reference.  If anything, Trump got the biggest unexpected boost when the FBI reopened the whole Hillary E-mail affair in late October.  Combined with Hillary's terrible campaign strategy.  Trump was a weak candidate with limited appeal outside his core group, which is why he lost the popular vote.  I'd say the Democrats handed him the election by running such a shitty candidate.  
 
As to the larger discussion:
 
I don't think Trump is all that complicated.  He's a sociopath.  I mean that in the clinical sense.  I don't think he has any real regard for anyone other than himself.  He also has no sense of humor, other than to make fun of others.  His ego is such that he will never admit a mistake, which he sees as weakness.  He lies without any apparent shame or even awareness that his is lying, it comes so naturally to him.  Based on observations of those around him, he hardly reads and is genuinely incurious about the world around him.  These are not good qualities for the leader of a Democracy (or Republic, or whatever you consider the US to be.)  Everything we know about this man, whether it be his personal life or his business dealings point to the undeniable conclusion that this is a man of the worst sort of character.
 
His understanding of how a leader operates is based on the model of the King or the Mafia don.  It's all about loyalty and family, not the rule of law.  It's a world view fundamentally at odds with what the US is supposed to be about.  It is hardly surprising that his two favorite targets are not political opponents, but the free press and the Department of Justice.  These are institutions vital to a functioning democratic state, so of course he views them as the enemy.  
 
As far as I can tell, he started his campaign as a bit of a publicity stunt to market his brand and to see how far it could go.  Once it gained traction, he kept going with it, the adoration of the crowds feeding his ego.  It became a vehicle for him to show all those that looked down on him over the years that he was going to beat them.  And the people at his rallies can sense that, and relate to it.  Winning is not about advancing an agenda as much as it is a way to stick to those snobby coastal elites/liberals/snowflakes/etc.
 
And so, beyond the expectations of even Trump's own campaign, he manages to eek out an amazingly narrow win and suddenly has a job he is not prepared for, nor that he understands.  His transition team, such as it is, was caught completely off guard and the first year of his administration is one of chaos and confusion, compounded with scandal and just outright weirdness.  Looking at it objectively, how can one not come to the conclusion that this President has no idea what he is doing?  It's a much simpler explanation than that he is somehow conducting fourth dimensional chess that we all can't understand.
 
I consider him a very dangerous man.  Some critics have taken to comparing him to Hitler, I don't like that comparison.  Hitler was motivated by an ideology and had a political agenda (an evil one, of course)  Trump is just all about Trump. I would consider Julius Caesar a more apt comparison.  Like Caeser, he is a man of unlimited ego and greed and would gladly trash the already damaged structure of US democracy to get what he wants.  Trump wouldn't just cross the Rubicon, he was build a fucking gold plated bridge over it with his name written in giant letters. 
 
That is why you will never get me to accept Donald Trump as President.  I don't now how I can say it any clearer.   

I don't think it's as simple as that.  I'm sure Kim has all sorts of ways to keep himself entertained and no shortage of smuggled Western luxuries.  From his viewpoint, he is dealing with a US President who is certainly more unpredictable in certain ways compared to other US presidents.  He also is looking at a US president who seems to care not one bit about sticking to previously made US agreements, which I am sure does not give Kim much incentive to trust Trump.  Also, he is looking at a US President who's administration is in perpetual chaos, has several major scandals hovering over it, and is consistently running at a 40% approval rating.  Kim might decide to wait it out for a few years until Trump is gone.  Certainly, North Korea has survived sanctions in the past.  If they survived Curtis LeMay's bombing campaign during the Korean war, they probably figure they can survive just about anything else.  Also, they will not give up their Nukes willingly, it's the one thing that keeps the US at bay.  John Bolton's mention of the Libyan model pretty much made it clear what happens to leaders the US does not like who don't have a nuclear deterrent.  Anyhow, Trump's military options are limited.  Kim knows this.

I'll probably be skipping this one in the theaters.
 
 

From Syrian parade in 1956:

 

 
Both were armed with the (supposedly) Breda SAFAT 12.7mm machine guns.