Presidents have terms, dictators reign. Wanna reconsider your Freudian slip?
And it's pretty far from the beginning, likely closer to the end.

Compared to Trump, Obama was the epitome of honesty and strength. He opposed our enemies, he didn't offer to encourage their expansions (Russia) or hand them legitimacy and military victories (N. Korea) while getting nothing in return, or walking away from treaties after the other party has gotten what they wanted but we haven't (Iran).....oh...and there's also the fact that unlike Trump, Obama won the popular vote....twice, so at least he was a real POTUS. ;-)

@ChaosEngine --

I was mostly just being facetious. Although I do think that "blissful ignorance" is a fine approach when it comes to appreciating media / art / whatever. As such, I'd rather ignore any of the behind-the-scenes stuff and evaluate such works strictly in their own right.

I think that works well (for me at least) for existing, completed stuff. But it is honestly a shame when that behind-the-scenes stuff gets in the way of expansions, follow-ups, or graceful conclusions to the good stuff that came before. Doesn't mean I will enjoy the good earlier works any less, though.

Fortunately I think in this instance they are very likely insured. It is a chain of restaurants in 5 locations and recently raise $60 million for further expansion (http://uk.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-eat-at-cava-grill-2016-9?r=US&IR=T).

To be fair, I'm sure that examples could be found of media personalities praising Obama/Clinton for similar stuff that they ragged Bush Sr./Jr. for. Best example off the top of my head might be Bush's "terrible war crimes" vs Obama's "brilliant use of drones".

Now, that all comes with a big disclaimer from me. I disliked Obama's expansion of drone bombing, flip-flop in in-office stance vs campaign stance on whistleblower protection, etc. But, I'd still personally evaluate Bush's, uh, miscues as overwhelmingly worse than Obama's. All I'm saying is that there have certainly been talking heads that have been hypocritical in the other direction before.

That being said, this clip takes it to a whole other level. This isn't nuanced, this is blatant. The only rational explanation is that Fox News simply is that biased, shamelessly so (no surprise to most of us). The problem is that Fox News' audience isn't particularly swayed by rational explanations.

I think clearing that "reality distortion field" is something that takes lots of time and lots of indisputable evidence. That's why I basically hope that Trump gets plenty of leash to try (and fail) to fulfill all of his ridiculous promises and self-hype. Nothing like a pointless and decaying border wall to serve as a reminder to be careful about who's cult of personality you get sucked into...

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

I too, read and loved this book years ago when it came out in paperback. From this trailer I get an almost Blade Runner meets The Expanse *quality vibe.

And the post 1990 borders of Texas include historically Mexican lands populated by Mexican people...so what. It was sovereign and Russia acknowledged that, agreed to it, and signed binding treaties ratifying it permanently.

Those keys and systems would have been quickly replaced had those treaties not been enacted...enough of them to be a deterrent. Had we not agreed to defend them and Russia agreed to never try to annex or otherwise take them over, they would have been a nuclear nation and safe from Russian expansion.

As I said, not defending them was a violation. I'm not defending the US's actions.
Opportunity kicked off Russian land grabs, make no mistake.

That statement reflects our undeniable obligation under clear international treaty, not any personally desire to be at war.
Nuclear powers often go to war...by proxy. We've been in one in Syria recently. Edit: according to Russia, they weren't there anyway, so they would be hard pressed to complain about US military in the Ukraine fighting what Russia said were all Ukrainians, no?

Regarding collusion-This isn't a legal forum, you can debate legal terminology and specific charges on one, here, we all understand what collusion means and none of us are swearing out specific legal charges.
Definition of collusion:secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose; acting in collusion with the enemy

Edit: As for the coup, many called it the revolution. It was a coup by the populace, who largely thought the elections were rigged for pro Russians. That said, it was probably a violation for us to eventually support it (I think we waited until after Russian incursions, though). It still, in no way, excuses the Crimean or Ukrainian invasions and annexations.

Ah, I see you didn't read the links.

Else you would know :

* The post 1990 borders of Ukraine include historically Russian lands populated by Russian people.

* Ukraine's nukes could not be to guard against Russia because Russia had the crypto keys and guidance control over Ukrainian nukes.

* U.S. support for the 2014 coup against Ukraine's government was arguably also a treaty violation. (I don't actually care about this one)

* Government corruption, rising nationalism, and anti-Russian sentiment, are what led to the coup, which kicked off the fighting, which led to Russian intervention, which led to the "land grabs".


(Anti-Russian sentiment was brewing for years before the 2014 coup. You can see it play out in the 2012 language law issue, which was one of the historical turning points leading up to conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_policy_in_Ukraine#Proposals_for_repeal_and_revision)


Sidenote, this statement is pure insanity : "We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions"
War with Russia would last less than an hour, and the only winner would be South America and Africa.
Nuclear powers can never go to war. I mean _never_ never.






Regarding collusion, here :
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/opinion/collusion-meaning-trump-.html

"
President Trump declared on Twitter: “There is NO COLLUSION!”
"
There ya go. A Trump declaration that the campaign was not illegally secretly coordinated (i.e. no collusion). Not backwards at all.

The link also explains the irrelevance of the term regarding legal issues.

-scheherazade

Expansionist Russia is back, and their neighbors need help guarding against Russian overthrow. That time is back.
Ukraine is not Russian, and it had a nuclear weapons program to safeguard against Russian incursions...which we convinced them to give up under our, and Russia's guarantee of their sovereignty and borders, and our guarantee to defend them militarily against Russia should it ever try to take any back, Crimea had the same guarantees. We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions. Russia entering either area at all was an act of war against us by treaty, one we barely responded to with defensive missiles in countries that wanted them desperately before they became Russian themselves.
The anti Russian sentiment is because of the land grabs, not an excuse for them. Holy shit!

Collusion against your own government and country to subvert the law with a foreign country is a crime. The collusion compounds the subversion.

People use the word collude to assert that Russia and the campaign illegally coordinated, you wrote it backwards.

Steam explosion. The lava is so much hotter than the boiling point of water that it converts from liquid to vapor very rapidly, that rapid expansion is the explosion. With an oil fire, it's much worse because the oil fire typically only burn on the surface where it is in contact with air. Adding water and a steam explosion throws the oil into the air allowing all the oil made air born to also catch fire and burn.

Only what they mentioned in the news.
20 ish guns.
2 ar15s, 1 with a bump stock.
1 ak pattern rifle (47 claimed, but the news is clueless. Could be a 74, could be an odd variant), possibly with a bump stock.
Then a bunch of other guns, not described.

Yes, full auto varies. I erred on the higher rate side.
A more realistic rate would be 12hz auto, 6hz bump, and 3hz semi.

Only other non-NFA non-bump rapid fire mechanism that I know of is a binary trigger (fires on pull, and on release). Effectively doubles your semi fire rate.

In any case, he only needed 1 gun and spare magazines.
I assume he brought everything not because it was necessary, but because he was planning to die and he had the stuff, so why not use it one last time (not like he'll get another chance).

To be fair, so far, mass shooters have stuck around for the long haul. Escape hasn't been an issue. But sure, in the future it could be.

True, you don't have to be 100% squeaky clean, but the vegas guy so far does look like he was.

As an aside, our felony code is incredibly expansive. People get disqualified from gun ownership over things that most normal people wouldn't even think would be illegal.

There's a stat that some lawyer published : a person typically commits 3 [obscure] felonies per day just going about normal daily activities. You can basically put anyone in jail if you choose to monitor them.

IMO, felonies should be divided into major and minor, with anything non violent being minor, and not disqualifying of gun ownership or right to vote.

Eg. I don't care if someone is running a pot farm. It isn't bothering anyone, it shouldn't even be a crime. But if it's gonna be a felony, at least it should be some lesser felony than it is now.

-scheherazade

Nope, those traits are antithetical to business too, probably why no one does business with him twice.

Paris accord, purely voluntary based on goals we set ourselves. Clearly he didn't understand it at all. It only costs us money if we want it to, and it only asks us to do what we ask of ourselves, with no enforcement at all. Interesting to note that the word "coal" is not in it, contrary to what someone seems to have told Trump...that it forces us to abandon coal while other countries can continue to adopt it.

You know Trump wants to leave NATO, probably because Putin wants him to so it will not be able to stand against more aggressive Russian expansion. Is a Soviet Europe cheaper than paying a bit more to NATO, or should we dismantle it just because Greece can't pay and ignore the consequences?

Europe no longer sees us as the leaders of the free world. For all your b.s. about Obama, Trump has ruined our international reputation in under 6 months more than even Fox claimed Obama had in 8 years.

The title, which you posted, claims this video is proof. Period. Take responsibility for what you post and/or stop posting pure lies. Edit: I don't believe for a nanosecond that if I posted a video titled "X provides proof Trump is having sex with his daughter" and the video had nothing but ridiculous opinion and innuendo (actual fake news) that you wouldn't call me a liar.

Proof: July27, 2016....he publicly requests that Russia hack Clinton in a speech. This is treason, unequivocally asking a foreign nation to interfere in our election. Tube chop is down so I can't cut it out and present it to you, but you won't mind listening to hours of Trump insanity to find it, will you? In case not, here's the quote....
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily....by our press"

Who cares? Anyone listening to him that can't determine if "I don't know Putin" or "We're great friends with a close personal and working relationship" is true. The president being truthful is important....and this one is not.

Trump has already been worse at controlling Russia, he's allowing more illegal military build up without any response, allowing more illegal military actions without response, indicating he intends to remove the sanctions imposed because of their interference in our election (on his behalf), and stating that Croatia is now Russia, and East Ukraine soon will be, tacitly supporting their expansion into our allies territories.

Russia and Korea are both problems. Trump has also not done a thing about Korea, waiting days after missile launches to even discuss it with Japan is not an appropriate reaction to missile launches aimed at our allies.

No, I absolutely don't feel safer under Trump, I see many countries 'testing' him, and he's either ignored or completely failed each and every test. Korea alone has broken international law with missile launches repeatedly, and assassinated citizens of other countries in public. Clearly THEY feel safer with Trump....safe to build up their arsenal and threaten us with nuclear war. Russia clearly feels safer too. The only ones not safer are our allies and ourselves.

There is so much wrong with this video I don't even know where to start. First, there are only two types of aircraft engines, piston and turbine. When a turbine is used to drive a propeller, it's called a turbo prop. When he is talking about turbo props, he shows pictures of a piston driven propeller aircraft (Cessna 41x), and piston engines are the most common type of engine used on propeller driven aircraft, not turbo props.

He mostly gets it right about turbo jets, except again, every aircraft he shows when talking about turbo jets uses a turbo fan (the F-15 and F-16 both use afterburning turbofan engines). They get their thrust from the hot expansion of exhaust gasses, but he gets it wrong with turbo fans, which get most of their thrust from the bypass air from the fan.

I can understand, it's not a simple issue, but this expansion happened 18-20 (invited in 97, members in 99) years ago. I simply can't grasp anyone being upset that NATO troops are in a long term NATO country.
If Putin/Russia hadn't been massing troops on it's borders, and then moving them into neighboring countries it now claims as part of Russia, the other bordering countries would not be asking for this safeguard, but to imply that NATO troops in Poland are somehow an attack on Russia is laughable. NATO troops would never invade Russia, that would certainly be WW3. As it stands, I feel like NATO probably wouldn't respond if it's troops were overrun by a Russian invasion of a member country, we (the US and others) certainly didn't help Crimea or Ukraine, even though we have a binding treaty requiring us to come to their defense, one paid for by giving up their nuclear arsenal.

Sadly, it's looking like there can be no stability/security in Europe with Russia either.