Trump this!

[Krošek]

alo, 'merikanci, kakve su sad ovo optuzbe oko megatrenda trump univerziteta?

 

relativno stare. danas je potvrdjena optuznica i bice tu penala jer fraud je ipak fraud. ali i trampovi botovi imaju sta da da kazu:

"This is SHAMEFUL!

These people rated Trump University OUTSTANDING and then when a sleazebag Lawyer says you can make money through a class action lawsuit they lie!"

 

bankroti mu nisu problem, cak se moze reci debunkovana prica, a ku kluks klan mu je najmanji problem. kao pravio se da ne zna ko je neki rasista a zasigurno zna...ma previse komplikovano za trampovce :)

[aram]

aj malo pogledaj onaj klip dzon olivera na prethodnoj stranici. Ima o megatrendu, ima o brankrotima, ima o klu klux klanovima, ima sve.

 

a volim olivera, al nema se vremena :(

 

budem veceras. ako opet ne zaspim...

[porucnik vasic]

 

relativno stare. danas je potvrdjena optuznica i bice tu penala jer fraud je ipak fraud. ali i trampovi botovi imaju sta da da kazu:

"This is SHAMEFUL!

These people rated Trump University OUTSTANDING and then when a sleazebag Lawyer says you can make money through a class action lawsuit they lie!"

 

bankroti mu nisu problem, cak se moze reci debunkovana prica, a ku kluks klan mu je najmanji problem. kao pravio se da ne zna ko je neki rasista a zasigurno zna...ma previse komplikovano za trampovce :)

 

Јес' и то превара је недвосмислено теже дело него погрешно руковање поверњивим материјалом. Има то своју логику.

[ObiW]

Јес' и то превара је недвосмислено теже дело него погрешно руковање поверњивим материјалом. Има то своју логику.

Ti bi kao vojno lice bi najbolje trebao da znas sta sve nosi oznaku "poverljivo". 

 

No poenta je u necem sasvim drugom: ako ti je najvaznija kvalifikacija za preCednika to sto mLogo uspesan bizMismen, a onda ispadne da si uspesan zato sto si malo sarao i varao, onda vise nisi uspesan biznismen nego si prevarant. 

[porucnik vasic]

Ti bi kao vojno lice bi najbolje trebao da znas sta sve nosi oznaku "poverljivo". 

 

No poenta je u necem sasvim drugom: ako ti je najvaznija kvalifikacija za preCednika to sto mLogo uspesan bizMismen, a onda ispadne da si uspesan zato sto si malo sarao i varao, onda vise nisi uspesan biznismen nego si prevarant. 

То је ако обрнеш следеће. Главна квалификација за функцију је ти је то што си супруга оног који је вршио функцију. Тп што си лажов и преварант није битно.

[Eraserhead]

I Hilari i Berni dobijaju Trampa ali samo Bernie dobija Kruza i Rubia

 

Ironicno, izgleda da je Hilari jedini kandidat kog Bernie ne moze da pobedi.

[Krošek]

znaci klintonka ne dobija jednog naucno dokazano genetski antipaticnog kruza...kakav neverovatan fejl

[Eraserhead]

Malo je melodramatican ali zanimljivo okrivljivanje GOP od strane Kagana.

 

 

Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster. Now he’s strong enough to destroy the party.

 

When the plague descended on Thebes, Oedipus sent his brother-in-law to the Delphic oracle to discover the cause. Little did he realize that the crime for which Thebes was being punished was his own. Today’s Republican Party is our Oedipus. A plague has descended on the party in the form of the most successful demagogue-charlatan in the history of U.S. politics. The party searches desperately for the cause and the remedy without realizing that, like Oedipus, it is the party itself that brought on this plague. The party’s own political crimes are being punished in a bit of cosmic justice fit for a Greek tragedy.

 

Let’s be clear: Trump is no fluke. Nor is he hijacking the Republican Party or the conservative movement, if there is such a thing. He is, rather, the party’s creation, its Frankenstein’s monster, brought to life by the party, fed by the party and now made strong enough to destroy its maker. Was it not the party’s wild obstructionism — the repeated threats to shut down the government over policy and legislative disagreements, the persistent calls for nullification of Supreme Court decisions, the insistence that compromise was betrayal, the internal coups against party leaders who refused to join the general demolition — that taught Republican voters that government, institutions, political traditions, party leadership and even parties themselves were things to be overthrown, evaded, ignored, insulted, laughed at? Was it not Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), among others, who set this tone and thereby cleared the way for someone even more irreverent, so that now, in a most unenjoyable irony, Cruz, along with the rest of the party, must fall to the purer version of himself, a less ideologically encumbered anarcho-revolutionary? This would not be the first revolution that devoured itself.

 

Then there was the party’s accommodation to and exploitation of the bigotry in its ranks. No, the majority of Republicans are not bigots. But they have certainly been enablers. Who began the attack on immigrants — legal and illegal — long before Trump arrived on the scene and made it his premier issue? Who frightened Mitt Romney into selling his soul in 2012, talking of “self-deportation” to get himself right with the party’s anti-immigrant forces? Who opposed any plausible means of dealing with the genuine problem of illegal immigration, forcing Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to cower, abandon his principles — and his own immigration legislation — lest he be driven from the presidential race before it had even begun? It was not Trump. It was not even party yahoos. It was Republican Party pundits and intellectuals, trying to harness populist passions and perhaps deal a blow to any legislation for which President Obama might possibly claim even partial credit. What did Trump do but pick up where they left off, tapping the well-primed gusher of popular anger, xenophobia and, yes, bigotry that the party had already unleashed?

 

Then there was the Obama hatred, a racially tinged derangement syndrome that made any charge plausible and any opposition justified. Has the president done a poor job in many respects? Have his foreign policies, in particular, contributed to the fraying of the liberal world order that the United States created after World War II? Yes, and for these failures he has deserved criticism and principled opposition. But Republican and conservative criticism has taken an unusually dark and paranoid form. Instead of recommending plausible alternative strategies for the crisis in the Middle East, many Republicans have fallen back on mindless Islamophobia, with suspicious intimations about the president’s personal allegiances.

 

Thus Obama is not only wrong but also anti-American, un-American, non-American, and his policies — though barely distinguishable from those of previous liberal Democrats such as Michael Dukakis or Mario Cuomo — are somehow representative of something subversive. How surprising was it that a man who began his recent political career by questioning Obama’s eligibility for office could leap to the front of the pack, willing and able to communicate with his followers by means of the dog-whistle disdain for “political correctness”?

 

We are supposed to believe that Trump’s legion of “angry” people are angry about wage stagnation. No, they are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past 7½ years, and it has been Trump’s good fortune to be the guy to sweep them up and become their standard-bearer. He is the Napoleon who has harvested the fruit of the revolution.

 

There has been much second-guessing lately. Why didn’t party leaders stand up and try to stop Trump earlier, while there was still time? But how could they have? Trump was feeding off forces in the party they had helped nurture and that they hoped to ride into power. Some of those Republican leaders and pundits now calling for a counterrevolution against Trump were not so long ago welcoming his contribution to the debate. The politicians running against him and now facing oblivion were loath to attack him before because they feared alienating his supporters. Instead, they attacked one another, clawing at each other’s faces as they one by one slipped over the cliff. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie got his last deadly lick in just before he plummeted — at Trump? No, at Rubio. (And now, as his final service to party and nation, he has endorsed Trump.) Jeb Bush spent millions upon millions in his hopeless race, but against whom? Not Trump.

 

So what to do now? The Republicans’ creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.

 

Robert Kagan

 

 

 

[Budja]

Newt Gingrich

 

 

Republicans can take this campaign down the Barry Goldwater path and “get beaten badly,” Gingrich posited, or be like Ronald Reagan and “win a stunning victory.”

“There’s no middle ground here, and I think Trump is about half of that decision,” Gingrich said. “The other half of that decision is gonna be the Republican leadership.”

 

 

 

Koja je bila Reganova koalicija?

Koliko sam ja nesto povrsno citao, tu, recimo, nije bilo mnogo evangelista. Karter je, ako se ne varam, born agian Crhistian.

[Dimitrije]

U Reganovu koaliciju su spadali uglavnom (bivsi) glasaci Demokratske stranke.  Evangelisti su podrzali Regana (tzv. "Moralna vecina" na cijem celu je bio Dzeri Fauel), iako im je Karter po religijskom opredeljenju bio blizi.  Medjutim, vrlo brzo su se razocarali u Regana jer njegova politika se u nekim bitnim stavkama kosila sa evangelistickim principima.

[ObiW]

То је ако обрнеш следеће. Главна квалификација за функцију је ти је то што си супруга оног који је вршио функцију. Тп што си лажов и преварант није битно.

Pa to jeste tako kako kazes ako izuzmes 6 godina koje je "supruga" provela u Senatu, i jos 4 godine kao ministar inostranih poslova, sto je de fakto covek broj 2 u americkoj vladi. DakleM, 10 godina nije bila samo "supruga", nego je i radila nesto. 

 

Koje su kvalifikacije Trampa kao politicara? Znamo da je lazov i prevarant, to nije sporno, nego daj da vidimo koje je to izbore dobio i gde je bio na vlasti?

Edited March 1, 2016 by ObiW

[porucnik vasic]

Pa to jeste tako kako kazes ako izuzmes 6 godina koje je "supruga" provela u Senatu, i jos 4 godine kao ministar inostranih poslova, sto je de fakto covek broj 2 u americkoj vladi. DakleM, 10 godina nije bila samo "supruga", nego je i radila nesto. 

 

Koje su kvalifikacije Trampa kao politicara? Znamo da je lazov i prevarant, to nije sporno, nego daj da vidimo koje je to izbore dobio i gde je bio na vlasti?

То је искуство намакла само као супруга оног курвара.  Ни Обама се није разбио од неког искуства пре него што је ушао у Белу Кућу. Успут, у време док је била министар иностраних дела направила је пар кривичних дела које теби нису битна.  Не видим каква је то морална надмоћ са којом прилазиш Трампу подржавајући особу која би по свој логици требала да буде под оптужбом. 

[James Marshall]

Ajde da i ja tebi lupim jedan +1. Njeno "iskustvo" je stečeno na osnovu pozicije koje je imala kao Prva dama i lobiranja bivšeg muža da bi okajao svoje grijehe. Žena je opasno antiharizmatična, teško da bi se ona sama od sebe uznijela u ove visine, ok to za senat i nekako a ovo što je bila Secretary of state je posljedica kompromisa unutar demokrata. Slabo je ona šta sama sebi izrudarila odozdo, mada kažu da je dobar pravnik i sila iza Bila.

[malkin]

kakve veze ima harizma sa sposobnošću da se dođe do visokih pozicija u izvršnoj vlasti? eno Keri isposlovao dil sa Iranom a moj lavabo je harizmatičniji od njega. iskustvo je jedna od stvari koje ne mogu da se ospore HRC, a to da je mužić od nje napravio to što je takođe nije istina. Bil je u velikoj meri njen projekat.

[James Marshall]

On je bio njen projekat, tako kažu, i ja bih se složio s tim, pa je ona iskoristila njega kao odakočnu dasku. I trenutno jaše njegovu harizmu i reputaciju među manjinama. Harizma je bitna da bi bio izabran, a ne postavljen. Na stranu što se nije baš pokazala kao Madam Secretary. Ali jednostavno imam osjećaj da će i ovaj njen pokušaj biti na gurku, pare establishmenta i muževljevu reputaciju - da je do nje samo, teško bi ona nešto postigla sama.

Jbg Obama ju je ošišao na čistu harizmu a ona je i 2007. bila favorit.