Trump this!

[3opge]

kako zlobaba pakleno laze i izbegava da odgovori na pitanje o transkriptima

[Eraserhead]

Kako je sjebase sa ovim pitanjem. To je taj CNN koji je favorizuje

[3opge]

kako bi bilo lepo da je isaraju jajima i trulim  paradajzom po ovom belom mantilu

sada zlobaba ispade i borac za min wage of $15

[dragance]

kako bi bilo lepo da je isaraju jajima i trulim  paradajzom po ovom belom mantilu

sada zlobaba ispade i borac za min wage of $15

 Ako demokratski senat glasa za to :D

[Venom]

vestica je vec pomenula obamu jedno 5 puta

Pa to joj je taktika od prvog dana. Polovinu vremena se kaci na obamu, polovinu kako je stajala licno iza vecine obaminih odluka.

[bigvlada]

 

Sva sreća da je tu Rolling Stone da izvede zabludelu mladež na pravi put.

 

In 2016, what does the "youth vote" want? As always, I think it has to do with idealism, integrity and authenticity, a candidate who will tell it like it is. It is intoxicating to be a part of great hopes and dreams - in 2016 it's called "feeling the Bern."

 

You get a sense of "authenticity" when you hear Sanders talking truth to power, but there is another kind of authenticity   which may not feel as good but is vitally important, when Clinton speaks honestly about what change really requires, about incremental progress, about building on what Obama has achieved in the arenas of health care, clean energy, the economy, the expansion of civil rights. There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders.

 

Ali ceo argument je sažeo ovde: "This is not the time in history for a protest vote. Clinton is far more likely to win the general election than Sanders..."

 

 

Časopis koji je promovisao rokenrol i buntovništvo navija za predsedničkog kandidata Goldman Saksa i vojnoindustrijskog kompleksa i ubeđuje čitalaštvo da nije vreme za protest. 

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by bigvlada

[frn1782]

Rokenrol i buntovnistvo su super stvar dok se svode na sex,kurve i koku ili neki kvaziintelektualni pozeraj a nisu za ozbiljnija promisljanja o svetu i politici.

Svi rokeri pod stare dane i onako odu u Republikance

Kids don't do drugs sto bi reko Stiven Tajler

[Eraserhead]

Odlican Ian Bremmer:

 

 

Trump and Sanders Have Tapped Into a Dangerous–and Wrong–Anti-Trade Sentiment

 

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have built their campaigns on opposition to trade. Trump says the U.S. has lost manufacturing jobs because American trade negotiators aren’t smart or tough enough to cut shrewd deals with China, Mexico and Japan. President Trump, he promises, will bring those jobs “home.”

 

Sanders, on the contrary, says that business elites, their lobbyists and their willing accomplices within the political establishment know exactly what they’re doing. They are the “one percent,” crafting trade terms to enrich themselves at the expense of working people. “Why do I want to pay somebody in Michigan a living wage when I can pay slave wages in Mexico or China?” reasons Corporate America, according to Sanders.

Both candidates caricature reality. Globalization–the processes by which ideas, people, money, goods and services cross borders at unprecedented speed–has created two sets of winners. First, Sanders is right that the world’s richest have increased their share of global wealth. Today, the world’s 85 richest people own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50% of the global population. There has been major progress–hundreds of millions of people in developing countries have been lifted out of poverty into the global middle class as emerging markets ramp up their industrial production. But between 2001 and 2013, America’s trade deficit with China cost the U.S. 3.2 million jobs, three-quarters of which were in manufacturing. Trump is right about that.

 

The early losers are those in wealthier countries, like the U.S., who have fallen from the middle class as factory jobs have vanished. These are the men and women nodding along with Trump or Sanders. Their living standards are much higher than those of workers in China or Mexico, but their prospects aren’t as bright as they were taught to expect. They have reason to be angry. The globalized marketplace has benefited workers in China, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Malaysia and Nigeria because they will work for much more modest wages, and because multinational companies have found ways to lower labor costs by outsourcing their operations.

 

You might be surprised to learn, however, that manufacturing jobs have been returning to the U.S. for the better part of a decade. The demand for higher wages in China and other emerging markets, the easy availability of low-cost energy for U.S. businesses and the advantages of bringing production closer to wealthier consumers have together created nearly a million new manufacturing jobs over the past six years. “Reshoring” has increased the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs from about 11.5 million in 2010 to about 12.5 million today. Trump and Sanders haven’t noted that.

 

But that’s not the end of the story. The U.S. remains far below the peak of 19.5 million manufacturing jobs in 1979, and the longer-term trend is toward technological change that increases efficiency by eliminating jobs for good. Here’s where the Trump and Sanders messages are especially dangerous.

 

Most of these jobs are never coming back. Just as the automobile killed the horse and buggy, so the automation of manufacturing will sideline the factory worker in coming years–in the U.S., in China and everywhere. The winner from globalization’s next wave will not be the Chinese or American factory worker but those who profit from the fast-increasing efficiency of the developed world’s machines.

 

Those who claim they can restore lost jobs and those who cheer reshoring are missing this, and they will ignore the urgent need to retrain workers for the (very different) jobs of the 21st century. Future factory jobs will go to those who can program, run and maintain fast-evolving high-tech equipment in the age of robotics, and those flexible and resourceful enough to succeed in many different roles. And there will always be fewer of these jobs than there were U.S. assembly-line workers in 1977 or Chinese factory workers in 2007.

 

The broader result will be a middle-class backlash against trade in both the developed and developing worlds, and greater pressure on governments to restore barriers. This trend will be much harder on developing countries and their more brittle political systems, but it will fragment the entire global marketplace, ignite nationalist passions and provide a platform for the next wave of Trump/Sanders-style populism–in rich and poor countries alike.

 

 

Najveci problem nisu ni Tramp ni Sanders kao populisticki kandidati koji igraju na nezadovoljstvo i strah ljudi. Vec razni drugi kandidati poput Hilari, Rubia, Busha koji nisu u stanju da formulisu alternativu i pristaju da igraju njihovu igru.

 

[Prospero]

vaistinu odličan

[Weenie Pooh]

Najveci problem nisu ni Tramp ni Sanders kao populisticki kandidati koji igraju na nezadovoljstvo i strah ljudi. Vec razni drugi kandidati poput Hilari, Rubia, Busha koji nisu u stanju da formulisu alternativu i pristaju da igraju njihovu igru.

 

Kako zamišljaš da formulišu alternativu? Šta bi trebalo da bude društveno i politički prihvatljiva verzija tvrdnje "jebiga, sve će nas zameniti roboti"?

 

U politici druge igre osim populizma realno nema. Trump se hvata za obespravljene bele mužjake, Sanders za mlade idealiste, Cruz za religijske zaluđenike, Clinton za partijske kadrove, žene, i ostale crnce.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Weenie Pooh

[Budja]

vaistinu odličan

 

Tacna dijagnoza, ali fali resenje problema

 

 

 

The winner from globalization’s next wave will not be the Chinese or American factory worker but those who profit from the fast-increasing efficiency of the developed world’s machines.

 

koje je bitno za politicku utakmicu.

 

Ako kazes, tehnologija, odose poslovi, a nisi u stanju da kazes koji ce poslovi te prirodno ukinute zameniti, to bas i nije politicki oportuno.

A u ovom trenutku je to prosto nemoguce znati.

[Budja]

Krugi zaradjuje sendvic.

The Pastrami Principle

Is it possible that Mr. Sanders doesn’t know this, that he imagines that Mrs. Clinton is riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats, as opposed to, let’s be blunt, the descendants of slaves? Maybe. He is not, as you may have noticed, a details guy.

It’s more likely, however, that he’s being deliberately misleading — and that his effort to delegitimize a big part of the Democratic electorate is a cynical ploy.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/opinion/the-pastrami-principle.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

 

Kakav intelektualni sunovrat.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Budja

[hazard]

Tacna dijagnoza, ali fali resenje problema

 

 

koje je bitno za politicku utakmicu.

 

Ako kazes, tehnologija, odose poslovi, a nisi u stanju da kazes koji ce poslovi te prirodno ukinute zameniti, to bas i nije politicki oportuno.

A u ovom trenutku je to prosto nemoguce znati.

 

Pa mozes da pricas nesto kao Robert Reich recimo, i da kazes u 21. veku u sred globalizacije, ljudi su najvazniji resurs, treba ulagati u obrazovanje i ponovno obucavanje kontinualno, kako bi ljudi bili spremni za nove i drugacije poslove. Recimo.

 

Ili mozes da otvoris neku tabu-temu, npr, ne daj boze, basic income. Mada to u Americi slabo prolazi, odmah bi te za Staljina proglasili, znam.

[Budja]

Pa mozes da pricas nesto kao Robert Reich recimo, i da kazes u 21. veku u sred globalizacije, ljudi su najvazniji resurs, treba ulagati u obrazovanje i ponovno obucavanje kontinualno, kako bi ljudi bili spremni za nove i drugacije poslove. Recimo.

 

Ili mozes da otvoris neku tabu-temu, npr, ne daj boze, basic income. Mada to u Americi slabo prolazi, odmah bi te za Staljina proglasili, znam.

 

Da, ali to je tanka motivacija.

Obecanje glasacu da ce morati stalno da se razvlaci po kursevima i zivi u vecnoj nesigurnosti.

Vote winner.

 

Da se razumemo, nemam ja politicko resenje za taj problem, samo ukazujem da ga je tesko naci. 

[hazard]

Saglasan, ali moze da se preformulise u neku optimisticnu poruku - tipa vi cete vase poslove sacuvati jer .... medjutim vas je poslednji voz sto se toga tice jer ..., a sto se tice obrazovanja, to cemo uraditi za vasu decu. Bla bla.

 

Mada Amerikanci jesu generalno naviknuti na menjanje poslova, karijera, i kod njih pali taj go-getter do-better etos. Tako da se njima lakse moze prodati takva prica nego recimo, Francuzima.