Trump this!

[MancMellow]

Svako zeli konkurenciju, osim u onom sektoru gde sam radi :D jer gde radis, tu ne bi da ti neki jeftini kinezi oduzimaju posao, a van toga, hoces sto jeftinije stvari da kupujes u radnji. Sira slika™ malo koga zanima.

 

Takodje, konkurencija nije problem onima koji su konkurentni. Da su radnici iz zatvorenih fabrika nasli bolje ili bar isto placene poslove negde drugde, bolela bi ih tuki sto sto good ol' 'mer'can magnfacturin' otisao u Kinu. Svako otvoranja ekonomije ka spolja menja strukturu privrede, a svaka promena znaci da neko negde uvek mora da najebe zbog toga. Ako tih sto najebavaju ima previse, moras imati mehanizam da ih na neki nacin kompenzujes. Mehanizam do 2008. je bio zaduzivanje preko glave i ,,vestacko" odrzavanje standarda...to je mozda bilo OK kao prelazno resenje, ali nije ,,preslo" ninasta drugo nego je samo puklo.

 

No nisam mislio samo na konkurenciju sa jeftinim svetom...nije npr. GM bankrotirao zbog kineskih proizvodjaca automobila. Tu su mnogo veci faktor Japanci, a Japanci su skupi radnici.

 

Prospero je vec pisao na tu temu, mislim da je kvaka u tome sto smo odavno izasli iz ere gde je otvorenost svetskog trzista bila skoro uvek povoljna po zapadne ekonomije. Sada je mozda i dalje povoljna po multinacionalne korporacije cija su sedista na zapadu (ali ni to ne mora doveka da potraje), ali otvaranje ka svetu ne znaci vise nuzno vise kesa u dzepu Average Joe-a. Tek sada, nakon sto je pukao kreditni balon bez naznaka da ce se naduvati kao ranije, biraci u zapadnim zemljama moraju da se suoce sa cinjenicom da nisu ,,pretplaceni" na prosperitet.

 

No, i pored svega toga, 1 Amerika je i dalje uzasno bogata zemlja i nastavice to da bude u daljoj buducnosti. To sto su tamo ljudi nezadovoljni raspodelom bogatstva je pre svega jedan interni problem - problem njihove interne raspodele. Potpuno isto vazi i za UK. Medjutim dobar deo naroda se pali na demagoge koji im govore da je problem spoljasnji, da su krivi neki zli stranci, i medju njima, i negde daleko. Britanija je to vec brexitom pretvorila u svoju nacionalnu tragediju, videcemo da li ce se u Americi sa nekim Trampom ili Trampom 2.0 desiti slicno.

 

. Ali regulisace se samo ako niko nista ne uradi. Zato sam bio za Bernija, zato sto, tacno, to su sve i dalje bogate zemlje, US i EU (Kanada, UK, etc) i može malo drugačijom internom raspodelom da se stvar učini dosta podnošlivijom. Stvari se neće moći rešiti činjenjem kao do sada - free trade, fiskalna strogoća u EU i potpuna zaštita krupnog kapitala u US i kod još nekih, narodu će se morati dati malo više, više para, investicija, infrastrukture, itd. Jer ako se ne bude rešavalo tako, rešavaće se Trumpovima, UKIP-ima, AfD-ovima i FN-ovima, a tu zidovi prema Meksiku i maltretiranje muslimana uopšte nisu kraj, nego samo početak priče (i tu ponajmanje mislim na Rusiju i slične gluposti). 

[Takeshi]

hilari drzala pres konferenciju nakon 260 dana.

ona ce upravljati amerikom isto kao i ja. srecom tu su profesionalci okolo (nastavlja se sve uspesno kao do sada)

 

Hillary Finally Gave a Press Conference. It Was a Master Class in Obfuscation

 

On Friday, Hillary Clinton took questions from the press for the first time in 260 days. A number of her answers revealed why she doesn’t hold press conferences more: Her answers to both difficult and easy questions were often evasive, excessively legalistic, and frustrating to watch.

[Weenie Pooh]

Uuu šta ti reko Slate, HRC, uuu...

 

Ali kakva su to pitanja jebote, “what is the most meaningful conversation you’ve had with an African-American friend?” Kao da je pitaju šta sluša od muzike.

[Takeshi]

kad se organizacija zove national association of black journalists sta drugo da pitaju  ^_^

 

u cemu je sustina rasnog udruzivanja profesionalaca iz neke struke?!  

[3opge]

kad se organizacija zove national association of black journalists sta drugo da pitaju  ^_^

 

u cemu je sustina rasnog udruzivanja profesionalaca iz neke struke?!  

 

u rasizmu.

[Eraserhead]

Inace pre dva dana sam prisustvovao sastanku gde jedna velika evrpska kompanija koja razmatra ulaganje u USA postavlja pitanje konsultantima u vezi sa politickim rizikom izbora. Interesovao ih je uticaj na minimum wage i procena mogucnosti da Trump pobedi. Odgovor je bio da je Trump nepoznanica i da je njegova politika nepredvidiva a da bi Hillary morala da radi na povecanju minimum wagea ali da je ona pro-business. I generalan komentar da povecanje minimalne plate nije samo negativna pojava jer otvara put povecanju prodajnih cena u kompaniji koju nameravaju da kupe.

[iDemo]

...mislim da je kvaka u tome sto smo odavno izasli iz ere gde je otvorenost svetskog trzista bila skoro uvek povoljna po zapadne ekonomije. Sada je mozda i dalje povoljna po multinacionalne korporacije cija su sedista na zapadu (ali ni to ne mora doveka da potraje), ali otvaranje ka svetu ne znaci vise nuzno vise kesa u dzepu Average Joe-a. 

 

I to bi bilo to, ne?

[Prospero]

QFT

 

...

 

Ever since Donald Trump, in an act of stupidity and indecency now becoming characteristic, spoke ill of the Khan family, whose son died in the Army during the Iraq War, the entire country has communicated a pro-military mindset that papers over the truth regarding America’s foolish and lethal wars in Vietnam and Iraq.

 

It is basic courtesy and kindness to express sympathy for anyone who has to bury a child, and to demonstrate respect for anyone who suffers injury or dies in war, but in an understandable and natural urge to honor the grief of the Khans, the Democratic Party, major media figures and Republicans desperately trying to distance themselves from the traveling disaster of Donald Trump have dragged out the big, rancid words “service” and “sacrifice.” These words act as censors against honest evaluation of American foreign policy. Throughout the rush to give the Khan family the regard they deserve and that Trump could not offer, it is disturbing to see almost no acknowledgement of the reality that their son, along with 4,485 other Americans, died in a war that should have never taken place. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died, and many more sustained life-altering wounds and trauma, but Americans are never much for counting the casualties their country creates, rather than endures.

 

As much as Trump should apologize to the Khan family for his rude and thoughtless remarks, shouldn’t the architects and administrators of the war that killed Humayun Khan also apologize?

 

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the lack of any operative connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, and the creation of a terrorist playground in place of a once stable, albeit oppressive and miserable, country has led the overwhelming majority of Americans to view the war as a “mistake” and “not worth it.” The Iraq War, like the Vietnam War before it, was unnecessary, stupid and destructive. A rational observer who just awoke from a coma the week before the Democratic Convention would have little awareness of the blunder and crime of the Bush administration, given that for the past week, the entire country has spoken about the optional failure of policy as if it was World War II.

 

When the words “serve” and “sacrifice” populate political dialogue, it becomes crucial to ask, serve what and sacrifice for what?

 

Was the war in Iraq launched and managed to serve the edification of neoconservative theorists? Did the deceased sacrifice for the reelection and approval ratings of George W. Bush? Were all the sacrifices of life, health and treasure made for the execution of an abstract geopolitical strategy that did not succeed?

 

To ignore the consequences of war, fail to investigate the causes of war, and reduce all discussion of war to the bravery and selflessness of those who fought it is to unlock the door leading to the next war.

 

In a turn of tragic irony, the war in Iraq is proof of the poison in simplifying all conversations about military conflict to the abstract concepts of collective nationalism – “hero,” “service,” “sacrifice.”

 

The United States had a great window into its past with the Vietnam War, and although there a number of differences between intervention in a Southeast Asian civil war and the occupation of an Arab country, anyone who bothered to look through that window could have forecasted much of the folly and fatality of Iraq. Instead, Americans boarded the window, tied yellow ribbons around their eyes, and proved the accuracy of Gore Vidal’s assessment of the country as the “United States of Amnesia.”

 

The dementia continues to worsen American functionality as political debate now shifts focus to Donald Trump’s lack of “service” in the Vietnam War. Much like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, he acquired deferments to avoid the draft, and in doing so, successfully managed to stay out of Vietnam.

 

Americans, one assumes, should express outrage that someone did not risk his life to help test the truth of the Domino Theory, or come home with his legs blown off so that Nixon wouldn’t lose face.

...

 

[Roger Sanchez]

Precious

:ziga:

[Prospero]

GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump
By Susan Collins August 8 at 9:00 PM
 

The writer, a Republican, represents Maine in the Senate.

I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.
 
When the primary season started, it soon became apparent that, much like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mr. Trump was connecting with many Americans who felt that their voices were not being heard in Washington and who were tired of political correctness. But rejecting the conventions of political correctness is different from showing complete disregard for common decency. Mr. Trump did not stop with shedding the stilted campaign dialogue that often frustrates voters. Instead, he opted for a constant stream of denigrating comments, including demeaning Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) heroic military service and repeatedly insulting Fox News host Megyn Kelly.
 
With the passage of time, I have become increasingly dismayed by his constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize. But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing — either because they do not share his power or stature or because professional responsibility precluded them from engaging at such a level — that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.
 
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.
 
The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. I kept expecting Mr. Trump to apologize, at least privately, but he did not, instead denying that he had done what seemed undeniable to anyone who watched the video. At the time, I hoped that this was a terrible lapse, not a pattern of abuse.
 
The second was Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. For Mr. Trump to insist that Judge Curiel would be biased because of his ethnicity demonstrated a profound lack of respect not only for the judge but also for our constitutional separation of powers, the very foundation of our form of government. Again, I waited in vain for Mr. Trump to retract his words.
 
Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. It is inconceivable that anyone, much less a presidential candidate, would attack two Gold Star parents. Rather than honoring their sacrifice and recognizing their pain, Mr. Trump disparaged the religion of the family of an American hero. And once again, he proved incapable of apologizing, of saying he was wrong.

I am also deeply concerned that Mr. Trump’s lack of self-restraint and his barrage of ill-informed comments would make an already perilous world even more so. It is reckless for a presidential candidate to publicly raise doubts about honoring treaty commitments with our allies. Mr. Trump’s tendency to lash out when challenged further escalates the possibility of disputes spinning dangerously out of control.
 
I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.
 
At the same time, I realize that Mr. Trump’s success reflects profound discontent in this country, particularly among those who feel left behind by an unbalanced economy and who wonder whether their children will have a better life than their parents. As we have seen with the dissatisfaction with both major- party nominees — neither of whom I support — these passions are real and the public will demand action.
 
Some will say that as a Republican I have an obligation to support my party’s nominee. I have thought long and hard about that, for being a Republican is part of what defines me as a person. I revere the history of my party, most particularly the value it has always placed on the worth and dignity of the individual, and I will continue to work across the country for Republican candidates. It is because of Mr. Trump’s inability and unwillingness to honor that legacy that I am unable to support his candidacy.

[Lord Protector]

Khizr Khan and The Triumph of Democratic Militarism 

 

Posted By Ted Rall On  August 2, 2016 @ 1:58 am In articles 2015,Leading Article 

 

Against the wishes of her New York Democratic constituents, Hillary Clinton voted with Senate Republicans to invade Iraq. (It was a pivotal vote. Without Democratic support, George W. Bush’s request for this war of aggression would have failed.)

Humayun Khan, 27, was an army captain who got killed during that invasion.

Eight years later, the dead soldier’s parents appeared at the 2016 Democratic National Convention — not to protest, but in order to endorse one of the politicians responsible for his death: Hillary Clinton.

Even more strangely, Clinton’s opponent Donald Trump is the one who is in political trouble – not because Trump sent Khan to war, but because Trump committed a relatively minor slight, especially compared to the numerous outrageous utterances to his name. Trump didn’t denigrate the dead Humayun Khan. Nor did he directly insult his parents. Lamely trying to score a feminist point concerning radical Islam, Trump insinuated that Mr. Khan didn’t allow Mrs. Khan to address the crowd because as a Muslim, he doesn’t respect women.

Let us stipulate that no one should impugn the courage of the war dead. (Not that anyone did here.) Let us further concede that Donald Trump is a remarkably tactless individual. Those things said, the Khan controversy is yet another spectacular example of the media distracting us with a relatively minor point in order to make a much bigger issue go away.

A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the primaries against them, and that the system is corrupt – into a trivial side issue over who might be responsible for hiking the DNC computers. Who cares if it was Russia? It’s the content that matters, not that it was ever seriously discussed.

Now here we go again.

Hillary’s vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign — against her.

Instead, it’s being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into a retro-post-9/11 “Support Our Troops” militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was “defending his country.” (How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away where no one threatens the United States, are “defending” the U.S. remains a long-running linguistic mystery.)

“Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son ‘the best of America,’” Khizr Khan told the convention. Unfortunately, the moniker can’t apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter Chelsea Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting $600,000 a year from NBC News for essentially a no-show job. But anyway…

“If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America,” Khizr Khan continued. The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. Obviously, Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims is racist and disgusting. Ironically, however, it would have saved at least one life. If it was up to Donald Trump, the Khans would still be in the United Arab Emirates. Humayan would still be alive. As would any Iraqis he killed.

“Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution?” asked Khizr, who is originally from Pakistan. “I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.” A good question. While we’re at it, however, where does it say in the U.S. Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal congressional declaration of war? Where does it say that the United States can attack foreign countries that have done it no harm and have never threatened it?

As you’d expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible. Asked about Khizr Khan’s remark that Trump hasn’t made any sacrifices, he idiotically attempted to compare his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about.

It has been widely remarked, always approvingly, that this year’s Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and “optimism” – scare quotes because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you’d might as well accept the status quo  – from the Republicans. This is part of Hillary Clinton’s strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump.

The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism.

Even the “liberal” party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the Iraq war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the “good” Muslims — those willing to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones.

Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or “boots on the ground.” Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems here at home, and it will always be hated around the world.

Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics.

Edited August 9, 2016 by slow

[Lord Protector]

 

50 Republican National Security Officials Eviscerate Trump In Open Letter Trump “would be the most reckless President in American history,” they write.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-national-security_us_57a8d2dce4b0aae2a5a0ba36?

 

[dillinger]

 

Khizr Khan and The Triumph of Democratic Militarism 

 

 

To je to manje zlo po planetu:

 

 

 

Washington (CNN)Former CIA acting-Director Michael Morell said Sunday he'd trust Hillary Clinton with the nation's security, but that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

Morell, who cast Trump as an unwitting agent of Putin in a New York Times op-ed last week, said on ABC's "This Week" that he's comfortable with Clinton after seeing her in action in President Barack Obama's administration.

"I worked with her for four years very closely when she was secretary of state and I was at the CIA. I provided her -- personally provided her some of the most sensitive information that the Central Intelligence Agency has," he said. "She never misused it. She always protected it."

 

He added: "I would trust her with the crown jewels of the United States government. And, more importantly, I would trust her with the future security of the country and the future security of my kids."

His endorsement could help Clinton amid renewed criticism over her use of a private email server.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by dillinger

[Prospero]

Ubijao bi "covertly" i onda to javno kaze Carliju Rouzu.

 

Maestralno

[Prospero]

Donald Trump has hinted at the assassination of Hillary Clinton by supporters of gun rights.

 

The Republican nominee was speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, about the next president’s power to appoint supreme court justices. “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” he said, adding: “Although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know.”

 

Those 2nd amendment guys, wink wink nudge nudge

 

 

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/763102980836962304

Edited August 9, 2016 by Prospero