Trump this!

[Indy]

Da li se to moze reci, onda, za podsmevanje Sari Palin?

Sara Palin je glupa!

 

Mizoginija!

Nema potrebe da pravis karikature. Politika je ljuta bitka i u njoj se koriste razni aduti, fer i nefer. Sem toga, skoro niko nije rekao da je HRC glupa, tako da ne znam sta ce ovde Palin (za koju su to neki rekli, ne bez razloga).

 

Trump, izmedju ostalog, u kampanji suprotstavlja snimke Putina kako izvodi dzudo bacanje i maskiranog IS-ovca kako preti nozem Hilari koja - kevce (negde je nasao snimak HRC kako oponasa lavez psa). Dakle, ko ce vas da zastiti od ovih arhizlikovaca, Putina i IS - treba naravno neko alfa-musko, a ne kucka koja laje. Pa mi posle objasnjavaj kako nema mizoginije.

[Lord Protector]

Meni je bilo jako neprijatno da slušam gospođu HRC kako usiljeno laje. Pa ona pretenduje na mesto predsednika USA, lajanje je čista glupost, nevezana za to dali je kandidat muškog ili ženskog roda. Ja sam video protumačio kao: ''rodno nedefinisani pas laje dok opasni karavani terorista i diktatora prolaze pored našeg dvorišta''.

Edited March 20, 2016 by slow

[Prospero]

 

 

Nisam video ranije, a ne znam gde drugo da stavim. Dug je period, nije mnogo ni bitno, no izgleda kao motley crew :D

Edited March 20, 2016 by Prospero

[Prospero]

It is one thing to live in interesting times, but another to live in historic times. And this spring is an historic time in American  political history.  We are in uncharted waters where a disconnect between Republican party leadership and the party base poses a threat not just to the GOP, but also to the Third Party System itself.

For Donald Trump’s  expected presidential nomination constitutes a hostile takeover by an outside candidate – an event that has occurred only twice in the last 160 years.

The Third Party System of Republicans and Democrats started in 1856 when John Fremont [R] challenged James Buchanan (D) in the presidential contest. Over the next 160 years America has had only  two major parties – Republican and Democrat. This remarkable  stability of the Third Party System stands in contrast to both the First and Second Party Systems. They lasted only 30 years each before one of the political parties disintegrated (Federalist in 1816, Whigs in 1854).

Over those sixteen decades the ideology of each political party in the Third Party System changed.  In the 19th century the GOP stood for energetic government, promoting the transcontinental railroad,  and high tariffs, while the Democrats championed limited government and state rights. In 1932 the parties switched identities. The bottle labels stayed the same – R and D – but the contents inside were different. Starting with Franklin Roosevelt, Democrats now promoted an energetic government, and Republicans advocated the opposite (with the exception of national defense).

While both parties went through an ideological makeover, challenges to the each party’s establishment were few. In fact, only twice did a party nominate a candidate who was dramatically at odds with the leadership. Those two successful hostile takeovers were mounted by former U. S. Congressman William Jennings Bryan (D) in 1896 and by U. S. Senator Barry Goldwater ® in 1964.

And now in 2016 we are witnessing a third successful hostile takeover from an outsider. But this time it is someone who has no political experience, and unlike either Bryan or Goldwater, has no ideological agenda. Bryan advocated a populist agenda, Goldwater a conservative one, but Trump has offered not a set of policies, but a list of promises (“Mexico will pay for a wall,” “Millions on millions of jobs will come back to America”). An effort to find consistent policies from the New York billionaire is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

In his attacks and ridicule of Republican Party leaders, Trump does resemble Bryan and Goldwater— who each channeled a frustration with the current party establishment. Bryan’s targets included the incumbent Democrat President, Grover Cleveland, who was disliked by a large portion of his party’s base. Resentment against Cleveland was so strong that senatorial candidate “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman from South Carolina earned his nickname by promising to put a pitchfork in the president’s rear.

While Bryan targeted the eastern conservative  establishment wing of the Democrat party,  Goldwater targeted his political adversary New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller – the icon of the powerful wing of the eastern  moderate establishment of the GOP which had successfully promoted the nominations of  New York Governor Thomas Dewey and Dwight Eisenhower.

Like Bryan in 1896 and Goldwater in 1964, Trump’s probable nomination has triggered strident attacks within his own party – if not a civil war. The two most recent Republican presidential nominees have denounced him as a liar and a fraud. Conservative columnist George Will called him  “a presidential aspirant who would flunk an eighth-grade civics exam.” And the National Review devoted an entire issue to attacks on the New York billionaire by prominent conservative Republicans.

In some ways the attacks on Trump mirror the ineffectual  efforts to stop Bryan and Goldwater, who lead the two past hostile takeovers of  parties in the Third Party System.

The consolidation urged today by Trump critics reminds one of Nelson Rockefeller’s decision to drop out of the race after losing the California primary, deferring to the candidacy of  Pennsylvania’s Governor William Scranton. This dramatic but doomed effort failed to deny Goldwater the nomination at the 1964 Republican convention in San Francisco.

The Democratic Party’s leadership could not stop Bryan 1896 when he won the nomination by stampeding the convention with his “Cross of Gold” speech.  But that did not prevent prominent Democrats from attacking their party’s nominee. In fact some Democratic leaders even went so far as to form the National Democratic Party – a third party whose sole purpose was to take away votes from Bryan and ensure his defeat in November elections.

No such third party movement followed Goldwater’s nomination in 1964, but plenty of high-level Republican congressional and gubernatorial candidates abandoned their party’s nominees. In a vain attempt to distance of Ohio Republican Senate candidate Bob Taft from Goldwater some of his supporters printed bumper stickers saying “Johnson-Taft in 1964”

The massive defeats of Republicans in the Midwest and Northeast that year provided President Lyndon Johnson with historic Democrat majorities in Congress. One could argue that the Great Society was launched on the back on the Goldwater nomination – just as those are arguing that election of Hillary Clinton could be traced to a Trump nomination if the millions of potential new voters that Trump has promised do not materialize in November.

The immediate impact of the past two hostile takeovers (1896 and 1964) was massive defeat for their party. But each takeover had long-term consequences as well for the party and for the Third Party System. Although  Bryan lost in 1896, his dominance  of the Democratic Party afterwards resulted in his nomination (and loss) in 1900 and again in 1908. His defeat in 1896 triggered  a realignment that drove his party  into a minority status. Only one Democratic president was elected in the next thirty-four years.

Goldwater had no such immediate impact on the Republican Party after 1964. His loss, in fact, contributed to the nomination of insider Vice President Richard Nixon four years later as the party establishment exerted and pushed aside Ronald Reagan’s first presidential bid.  But Goldwater’s doomed effort in 1964 became a factor in Reagan’s success in 1980 in his third effort to get his party’s presidential nomination.

Most presidential elections are neither exciting nor historic. They feature safe candidates supported by party leaders. Not so in 2016. The future of the Republican Party under a Trump presidential nomination and possible administration will make this an exciting and historic time.

 

See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162320#sthash.duhetE5u.dpuf

 

[Weenie Pooh]

 

Nisam video ranije, a ne znam gde drugo da stavim. Dug je period, nije mnogo ni bitno, no izgleda kao motley crew :D

 

Ukrajina se usrećila onoliko. Eto dokaza da na odluke koje HRC donosi nimalo ne utiču donacije -_-

[Eraserhead]

Ukrajina se usrećila onoliko. Eto dokaza da na odluke koje HRC donosi nimalo ne utiču donacije -_-

Sranje u Ukrajini je pocelo nakon sto je HRC napustila funkciju.

[Weenie Pooh]

Pa to, 10 miliona od donacija => faktor mira & stabilnosti. Onda ode žena sa funkcije i so long, suckers...

[Budja]

Nema potrebe da pravis karikature. Politika je ljuta bitka i u njoj se koriste razni aduti, fer i nefer. Sem toga, skoro niko nije rekao da je HRC glupa, tako da ne znam sta ce ovde Palin (za koju su to neki rekli, ne bez razloga).

 

 

Mizoginija !

[frn1782]

Evo ja kazem baba je glupa ko q, zenski W.

Kako sam tu tek politicki nekorektan?

Da li vredjam zene kroz ocenu njene gluposti ili muskarce sto pezorativno karakterisem falusni simbol poredeci je s njom?

 

Jedan od razloga dosadasnjeg uspeha Trampa je delom i to bacanje pegle dobrog dela populacije na svu tu izvestacenu i usiljenu PC koja je prilicno levicarski produkt dosta stran cenim i Amerikancima, verbalni delikt i tako to...

[Eraserhead]

Postoji PC govor koji ima smisla (nigger, siptar itd) i onaj (trigger warnings itd) koji je karikatura jedne generalno dobre ideje da reci ne treba shvatati olako. Medjutim Tramp nije nikakav bunt zdravog razuma protiv PC terora nego obican populista i manipulant.

[Budja]

Postoji PC govor koji ima smisla (nigger, siptar itd) i onaj (trigger warnings itd) koji je karikatura jedne generalno dobre ideje da reci ne treba shvatati olako. Medjutim Tramp nije nikakav bunt zdravog razuma protiv PC terora nego obican populista i manipulant.

 

Davite sa tim populista, A nije ni neki manipulant, manipulant je Kevin Spejsi u HoC. On se, prosto, predstavlja kao bully. I to je dovoljno lose jer u javnom govoru postoje granice da se drustvo ne bi raspalo. Straight talking nije isto sto i sipanje uvreda okolo.

 

No, rec je ovdce manje o Trampu a vise o Hilari koja, manipulisuci, zeli da predstavi kritiku  njene politike i licnosti kao mizoginiju suzavajuci na taj nacin polje debate. I zato je Sara Palin odlican kontraprimer.

[Anduril]

...

No, rec je ovdce manje o Trampu a vise o Hilari koja, manipulisuci, zeli da predstavi kritiku  njene politike i licnosti kao mizoginiju suzavajuci na taj nacin polje debate. I zato je Sara Palin odlican kontraprimer.

 

Znaci, mislis da je OK sistematski koristiti "baba" kao pezorativ za zenske politicare poput Hilari, Merkel, itd.?

Ne vidis razliku kada se kaze da je neko glup ili glupa?

Nisam ni sumnjao - navijacka subkultura rula.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Anduril

[dragance]

Ucitavas. Baba i deda se ustalilo, vise zbog tog kontrasta izmedju Sandersa i HRC, a nije ni pezorativno. Da je zovemo "bakica" ili "bakuta", da li bi mislio da je pezorativno?

 

Mislim, pokusavas da nadjes nesto da bi kontrirao, skrenjivanjem sa glavne teme - koliko je HRC politicar bez trunke integriteta.

[3opge]

kako je samo anduril majstorski usrao ovaj topik, srce mu se cepa zbog jadne babe ko isprane gace.

[Budja]

Znaci, mislis da je OK sistematski koristiti "baba" kao pezorativ za zenske politicare poput Hilari, Merkel, itd.?

Ne vidis razliku kada se kaze da je neko glup ili glupa?

Nisam ni sumnjao - navijacka subkultura rula.

 

Ne vidim razliku jer je rec o forumu a ne javnom prostoru gde se, kako sam ilustrovao u nekoliko primera, licni nadimci liberalno koriste za fizicke osobine.

 

Sto se javnog prostora tice, Hilari niko nije nazvao babom, ali se uprkos tome malo-malo Bernijeve pristalice ("Berni-bros") optuzuju za mizoginiju kada ukazu na politicke nedoslednosti babe™.