Trump this!

[hazard]

 

 

Kako mu ga je šuknula, svaka joj čast. Ima još...

 

Da li je moguce da je Mur toliki retard da ne zna o cemu je pesma I don't like Mondays

[hazard]

Dok god se demografija Amerike menja, demokrate mogu da sednu i piju čaj. Zaboravlja se da jeste sa druge strane Tramp ali je sa ove strane Klintonka koja sem činjenice da bi bila prva žena predsednik je kandidat koja ne inspiriše ni u čemu. Demokratska mašina će i od generičkog republikanca da napravi ološa koji mrzi žene, lezbejke, gejeve, crnce i hispanike i neće im biti teško to da učini jer da bi bilo koji Republikanac mogao da dođe do nominacije moraće debelo da podilazi bazi. Čak i da to sve prebrodi kao recimo Romni onda će mu naći da je bogat, ako ne to onda će biti pro life u državi koja većinski nije. Strukturalna prednost Demokrata u EC sistemu je ogromna. I ne vidim da će da se smanjuje nego će da se povećava naprotiv. Broj latino glasača može samo da raste. Sledeći republikanac će imati teži posao da osvoji Floridu, Nevadu nego prethodni, onaj posle njega neće moći da računa ni na Arizonu i Teksas itd. Tramp je ovde u takvoj situaciji jer će verovatno uspeti da izvede na birališta rekordan broj belih glasača bez koledž diplome pa ima play u državama kao PA, WI, MI itd. Neko kao Mekejn, Romni pa ni Kruz sa totalno drugog spektruma Republikanaca nema taj appeal. Neki Kejsik bi moooožda mogao da dobije Hilari, mada ne vidim kako bi on bolje prošao u Floridi ili Nevadi recimo, pa ni Virdžiniji itd. Ali Kejsik nikada ne bi mogao do nominacije.

 

 

Upravo. GOP je gotov, sto se nacionalnih uzbora tice.

 

 

 

 

Da, to je to.  Ovo sto je theanswer napisao je odlicna analiza cele te catch-22 situacije za GOP.  Kandidati koji bi mogli da pobede u general election ne mogu da pobede primaries, ono koji pobede primaries nisu prihvatljivi za general election.  A jos ih jebe to sto im glasaci izumiru, a mladje generacije su vise etnicki sarolike. A i oni beli od njih se vise toliko ne pale na rasizam, ksenofobiju, patrijarhalnost, i religioznu zatucanost.

 

 

 

Ja ne znam na osnovu cega ste bas tako sigurni. Mislim to mozda jeste neki generalni trend koji ce ubiti GOP za 20-30 godina (mada opet ko zna sta ce se desiti sve za 20-30 godina, na sta ce liciti sama GOP, i Dem, itd.), ali za 2020.?

 

Belci glasaju vise nego manjine, matorci glasaju vise nego mladi.

 

Pa pogledajmo ove izbore - nikada gori kandidat za republikanske strane, a Hilari umesto da vodi 15-20% vodi 5% po anketama. Jer je jednostavno Hilari za mnoge neubedljiv i nepopularan kandidat - nije dovoljno za mnoge izgleda samo da sa druge strane bude djavo.

 

Ako 2020. opet bude Hilari, neubedljivi i nepopularni kandidat sa jos 4 godine predsednikovanja pride, a sa druge strane bude ugladjen(iji) republikanac (Tramp je toliko pomerio granice da bi sada Pat Buchanan zvucao razumno), lako moze Hilari da prsne.

Edited November 4, 2016 by hazard

[WTF]

@WTF ... mene samo čudi kako ne primećuješ još jednu razliku : Hillary je pravila sranja (dosta očigledna korupcija, mailovi, ekipica™ i sl.), a Trump najavljuje gluposti koje skoro sigurno neće moći da ostvari (čak i da postane predsednik).

Naravno, stvarno mislim da je daleko gore da Trump bude predsednik (i nadam se da nećemo imati prilika da saznamo kako bi to izgledalo), ali je problem što ti uopšte ne priznaješ je Hilari loš kandidat

 

Priznajem da je los kandidat i priznajem da glasam (tj. vec sam glasao) za nju kao za manje zlo.  Mnogo manje zlo.  Za vas van USA, ne znam.  Rekao bih da vam isto dodje ko god pobedio.

A za ono boldovano ne bih bas bio siguran.  Potcenjujes moc predsednicke pozicije, manjak kicme GOP u kongresu, i mehanizme izvrsne vlasti i spremnost ljudi u njima da bespogovorno izvrsavaju sva naredjenja (cak i ona sa kojima se ne slazu).

 

Na stranu ono sto prosecnog Srbina tera od Hilari a to su B&B tj Bil i Bombardovanje, kod mene je slucaj to sto Ameri koje imam na fejsu u velikoj meri gutaju, seruju i veruju u ovakve budalastine kao sto su na klipu gore, pa mi posle nekog vremena bude malo muka. Mislim car jos zavrsi pricu sa "There is literally not a thing that was exaggerated." Pa mislim stvarno. Bukvalno kao da su preslikali Tadicev playbook.

 

 

 

Vidim tu i tamo neke komentare koji vuku paralele sa srpskim izborima iz 2012, gde je Trump Toma a Hillary Tadic i naravno pominjanje onog cuvenog "samo da ne dodje Toma Trump".  Ja tu donekle i mogu da shvatim Hillary/Tadic poredjenje, ali Toma/Trump mi je potpuno bez zdravog razuma.  Toma je u Srbiji 2012, bez obzira na svoju proslost i taj baggage vodio jednu (za njega i njegovu partiju) relativno pozitivnu kampanju.  Niti je obecavao da ce poslati Tadica ili pola DS odmah u zatvor, nije obecavao nove ratove, nije obecavao prekid saradnje sa Hagom, nije obecavao prekid puta ka EU i okretanje Rusiji , nekako je svojim nastupima polako izbijao protivnicima taj "samo da ne dodje on, jer bice smak sveta" argument.  Trump s druge strane preti svima zivima, vredja, ucenjuje, obecava haos, trgovinske ratove, formiranje paravojski, i ko zna sta drugo.

 

Da se nadovezem na Lezilebovicha - ja razumem apsolutno perspkektivu vas u Americi ali i vi treba da razumete perspektivu onih van - nekoga daleko vise zanima da li ce Hilari u stilu svojih prethodnika da bombarduje jos 3 zemlje nego da li ce Tramp da dize zid na granici s Meksikom. Nekome je bitnije od antimuslimanske retorike Trampa Hilarijin hladnoratovski stav prema Rusiju i ,,zlom Putinu". I tako dalje.

 

Za mene bi npr. Ron Pol bio najbolji predsednik ikada zbog svog pacifizma i spoljne politike a to da li bi privatizovao sve skole u Americi jer je liberterijanac mene realno ic ne zanima (dok bi tebe i Erasera i ObiWa itekako zanimalo i to mi je skroz jasno naravno).

 

Mislim ja bi voleo da me izbori u SAD doticu koliko i oni u Danskoj ili Juznoj Koreji ali ne doticu. Bas cudno da na pretezno srpskom forumu ljudi gledaju Hilari prevashodno iz ugla spoljne politike. Samo, to je potpuno legitimno i OK, kao sto je i legitimno i OK biti u fazonu ,,mora se glasati za manje zlo" ako zivis u SAD.

 

Ja se 100% slazem s ovim sto si napisao, ali onda prakticno mozemo da zakljucamo topic.  Oko cega bi onda diskutovali?

[mandingo]

Misli se o predsednickim izborima. NC i SC polako poplavljuju, a boga mi i Texas. Osim ako GOP ne skuplja 80% glasova belaca, a nece, to je zavrsena prica.

 

Edit @ hazard

Edited November 4, 2016 by mandingo

[francuski sobar]

Misli se o predsednickim izborima. NC i SC polako poplavljuju, a boga mi i Texas. Osim ako GOP ne skuplja 80% glasova belaca, a nece, to je zavrsena prica.

 

 

I Džordija lol. Više imam vere u plavi fajervol nego u lenje južnjake.

 

Svejedno,  javio mi s novi apdejt. 6+ za Trampa, režim ne priznaje, mediji unisono o hakovanim kutijama, Hilari pokazuje neke vreće...

[WTF]

Ja ne znam na osnovu cega ste bas tako sigurni. Mislim to mozda jeste neki generalni trend koji ce ubiti GOP za 20-30 godina (mada opet ko zna sta ce se desiti sve za 20-30 godina, na sta ce liciti sama GOP, i Dem, itd.), ali za 2020.?

 

Belci glasaju vise nego manjine, matorci glasaju vise nego mladi.

 

Pa pogledajmo ove izbore - nikada gori kandidat za republikanske strane, a Hilari umesto da vodi 15-20% vodi 5% po anketama. Jer je jednostavno Hilari za mnoge neubedljiv i nepopularan kandidat - nije dovoljno za mnoge izgleda samo da sa druge strane bude djavo.

 

Ako 2020. opet bude Hilari, neubedljivi i nepopularni kandidat sa jos 4 godine predsednikovanja pride, a sa druge strane bude ugladjen(iji) republikanac (Tramp je toliko pomerio granice da bi sada Pat Buchanan zvucao razumno), lako moze Hilari da prsne.

 

Pa ja i mislim da je to generalni dugorocni trend.  Za 2020 (ako pobedi Hillary) ce biti zanimljivo.  Njena popularnost bi mogla da skoci ili da padne, u zavisnosti od toga sta uradi, pogotovo u prve 2 godine.  GOP bi najbolje bilo da im kandidate bude neki vuk u jagnjecoj kozi ala John Kasich ili tako neko.  Problem je to sto ce baza zeleti Trumpa 2.0.

 

 

Misli se o predsednickim izborima. NC i SC polako poplavljuju, a boga mi i Texas. Osim ako GOP ne skuplja 80% glasova belaca, a nece, to je zavrsena prica.

 

Edit @ hazard

 

Samo da te malo ispravim, SC bas i ne plavi toliko, jos uvek je solidno crvena, crvenija od TX.  GA je ta druga juzna drzava koja se polako pomera ka swing state  usled doseljenja velikog broja ljudi sa strane plus velike AA populacije.

[frn1782]

 

 

[Weenie Pooh]

Da li je moguce da je Mur toliki retard da ne zna o cemu je pesma I don't like Mondays

 

Odgovarao joj je posle sve u stilu "OK, nije da nema ženskih zlikovaca uopšte, ali najveći broj žena ipak ne spada u masovne ubice i šefove konc logora." Dočim većina muškaraca valjda upravo to jeste.

 

Užasno mi je drago da im je nešto žensko odbrusilo po toj liniji "Jebite se ako mislite da dugujem nekom glas zbog svog pola, stoko bezobrazna". 

[Prospero]

Meni se samo cini da ipak niste procitali sta je sve Tramp izjavljivao na temu spoljne politike.

Zasto izostavjate najavljena zaostravanja sa Kinom ili Iranom?

Odakle spekulacija da pojacani americki nacionalizam nece rezultirati vecim spoljnim sukobima? Na kojim iskustvima to bazira?

Odakle sigurnost da ce neko ko ocigledno nema pojma o spoljnoj politici biti manja opasnost na celu najvece vojne sile na planeti?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/03/trump-is-less-hawkish-than-hillary-who-cares-clinton/

Trump Is Less Hawkish Than Hillary. Who Cares?

Clinton’s instincts might be overly aggressive. Trump’s are an incoherent catastrophe.

By Micah Zenko

November 3, 2016

 

In a presidential campaign dominated by discussion of the candidates’ behavior, temperaments, and professional connections, there has been shockingly little mention, by the campaigns and the media, of policy. In particular, hardly anyone has paid attention to foreign policy, beyond the allegations of foreign interference in the electoral process. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have not been forced to answer clarifying questions about their foreign policy positions, beyond the narrow scope of U.S.-led counterterrorism operations within Iraq and Syria.

This should be a critical part of any national campaign because, unlike their role in domestic legislation and appropriations, American presidents have tremendous power and authority over the scope and conduct of foreign policy. This has been especially true since 9/11, when the chief’s constitutional authorities started being used to justify a range of covert and clandestine actions, as well as expanded military commitments, with very little restraint or oversight from Congress or the courts.

I took it upon myself this year to write several pieces assessing the sorts of Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would likely be. Of those, I have received the most feedback from the one titled “Hillary the Hawk: A History.” And given Clinton’s willingness to use force and belief in the power of coercive diplomacy, I do believe that she is slightly more “hawkish” than Trump.

To be perfectly clear, however, I have little doubt that Donald Trump would be a vastly more dangerous and destabilizing foreign-policy president than Hillary Clinton. The business mogul has not demonstrated a grasp of even the most basic principles, laws, and behaviors that govern the conduct of foreign policy, or the manner in which nation-states interact. Worse, he refuses to learn, proudly stating when asked who he listens to on foreign policy, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things…. I have a good instinct for this stuff.” He simply does not.

The basis for this judgment are Trump’s own statements on foreign policy issues.

Trump has no ability to articulate or prioritize foreign threats. He has repeatedly stated that the top threat to U.S. national security is “nuclear global warming.” Unless he is somehow incorrectly referring to the diametrically opposite concept — the “nuclear winter” scenario first articulated in the journal Science in 1983 — then absolutely nobody has any idea what this means. If Trump said the biggest threat is cyberattacks (as Director of National Intelligence James Clapper does), or Russia (as the Joint Chiefs do) it would offer some insight into how he views the world. But his embarrassing and unprecedented belief that “nuclear global warming” is a threat is a disqualifying proclamation.

Relatedly, Trump has no understanding of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. When asked which leg of the nuclear triad he thought was most important, he replied: “I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.” It has become an overused scare tactic to envision an irrational Trump with his “finger on the button,” launching a preemptive nuclear attack. However, considering the consequential decisions the next president may have to make on nuclear warhead modernization, delivery vehicle replacements, and deterrence scenarios, an incoming president should have some idea about America’s 1,930 deployed nuclear weapons.

Trump either has no understanding of U.S. conventional military power, or is being intentionally misleading about the capabilities of the armed forces. He inaccurately defames the most globally committed and powerful military in world history as being “very weak” and “seriously depleted,” and led by generals who “have been reduced to rubble to a point where it’s embarrassing to our country.” Other than repeating the Reagan “peace through strength” mantra with zero context, Trump has given little indication what sorts of military missions he would support. He opposes using U.S. ground troops for “nation-building,” but has repeatedly endorsed using them in Iraq (and in Libya in 2011) to coercively extract the country’s oil and natural gas. This is an illegal act of aggression fit for King Leopold II of Belgium, not a U.S. president.

Trump also has all but pledged to start trade and currency wars with U.S. allies and partners, ending what he labels an “era of economic surrender.” Withdrawing from multilateral treaties that govern and regulate the flows of people, goods, and services, or imposing onerous tariffs and sanctions would immediately crater U.S. exports — which comprise 13.5 percent of GDP — and increase unemployment. Increased trade correlates with a reduced likelihood of war between states, and even of coups within conflict-prone countries. More cruelly, he has threatened to prevent remittances from being sent to Mexico (approximately $25 billion per year), which is the single most effective poverty alleviation activity imaginable, unless Mexico City pays for “that wall” he plans to build along the U.S. southern border. (Ironically, Trump’s candidacy is causing remittances to Mexico to surge.)

Finally, and most dangerously over the long-term, Trump does not believe in human-induced global warming. He has promised that he would “cancel” the historic climate agreement negotiated last year among nearly 200 countries in Paris. In 2012, he claimed it was a hoax created by China to undermine U.S. industry, and nearly every time there is a cold snap in the country, he cites the chilly temperatures as evidence that global warming is not happening. For the third consecutive year, 2016 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record, according to NASA. It is simply too great a risk for the United States to be led by a president who cannot accept the overwhelming consensus of scientists, and recognize the urgency to confront this complex and truly global challenge.

Of course, Trump has numerous other foreign-policy positions that should invalidate him as a reasonable president, from misrepresenting the informal pledge of NATO member states to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense as money owed to the United States, to promising to reintroduce torture to as a U.S. counterterrorism tactic. When it comes to foreign policy, Trump’s own positions make him the most immoral, poorly informed, and dangerous presidential candidate in recent American history.

If Clinton is elected, there will undoubtedly be troubling foreign-policy positions and actions which must be thoroughly questioned and scrutinized. I just deeply hope that citizens have the opportunity to hold a President Hillary Clinton to account.

[hazard]

Finally, and most dangerously over the long-term, Trump does not believe in human-induced global warming. He has promised that he would “cancel” the historic climate agreement negotiated last year among nearly 200 countries in Paris. In 2012, he claimed it was a hoax created by China to undermine U.S. industry, and nearly every time there is a cold snap in the country, he cites the chilly temperatures as evidence that global warming is not happening.

 

Meni je ovo, realno, iz perspektive ne-amerikanca koji brine o ovoj planeti, najveci problem kod Trampa - ali i kod cele bulumente drugih GOPera

[Takeshi]

How Macedonia Became A Global Hub For Pro-Trump Misinformation

 

BuzzFeed News identified more than 100 pro-Trump websites being run from a single town in the former Yugoslav Republic.

 

[MNE]

Trump Is Less Hawkish Than Hillary. Who Cares?

 

pa recimo svako kome se živi i ko pozitivno ramišlja, raja koja smatra da je promašila život(narkomanija, alkoholizam, nihilizam whatever) ne gubi puno ako se desi WWIII

 

 

 

Meni je ovo, realno, iz perspektive ne-amerikanca koji brine o ovoj planeti, najveci problem kod Trampa - ali i kod cele bulumente drugih GOPera

 

ne brini se neće planeta nikuda, a temperatura će da šeta tamo vamo i kad nestanemo sa ove planete kao što je bilo i dok nismo evoluirali u industrijalce

 

a i svakako ćemo u idućih 100ak godina preći većinom na torijum ako se međusobno ne istrijebimo, urnisanje ekonomije da bi se zadovoljila nečija besmislena agenda može samo da donese štetu

[Roger Sanchez]

mislim, dovoljno je pogledati što tu anegdotalno piše najveći Trumpov ćirlidersić, recimo odmah iznad. Kome se nije kazalo sve, nema mu spasa. Prezime Clinton žulja ga toliko da silazi sa zdravog razuma u niže predjele.

[MNE]

prezime je nebitno, bitno je ono šta dotična propagira a nije jedina jer ima ih još u toj ekipi od kojih su neki republikanci (mekejn itd.)

[theanswer]

mislim, dovoljno je pogledati što tu anegdotalno piše najveći Trumpov ćirlidersić, recimo odmah iznad. Kome se nije kazalo sve, nema mu spasa. Prezime Clinton žulja ga toliko da silazi sa zdravog razuma u niže predjele.