Trump - hoće li biti impeachment ili 8 godina drugačijeg predsednikovanja?

[Weenie Pooh]

Ti izgleda ne shvatas da su pobede desnicarskih populista poput Trampa i psihologija likovanja koju si opisao globalni fenomeni koji vode ceo svet prema jos vecoj katastrofi. Nesto kao nalet fasizma 20-tih i 30-tih koji je bio moguc jednimo zbog slabosti i politicke nepismenosti vecine a ne zbog realne snage fasista. Tebi je mozda smesno a meni je zalosno kako ljudi sami sebe ukopavaju - Srbija je tu zapravo avangarda posto je Milosevic bio jedan od prvih tog tipa. Samo likujte dok vas direktno ne pogodi...

 

Evo ga opet, kao da je moj izbor bio između likovanja i glasanja za HRC :D Ako će ti biti lakše, meni je iskreno žao što su se demokrate toliko srozale da nisu uspele da ne kandiduju HRC za WH, što nisu shvatile da ih identity politics neće dovesti do 270. elektora, što se od babinog muža na ovamo pretvaraju u Republican Lite skupinu papirnatih tigrića, što su umislili da je I'm With Her jaka parola, što nisu uspele da izvuku glave iz dupeta i prepoznaju da se desničarski populizam levičarskim populizmom izbija... Da, ljudi sebe ukopavaju, ali ne oni nesrećnici koji daju glas Trampu, nego oni politički pismeni ljudi koji uporno teže jebenom centrizmu u dvopartijskom sistemu.

 

I kad se to sve već desilo, kad je situacija na terenu pokazala koliko tragično vi baboljupci niste bili u pravu - kako čovek da ne likuje?!

 

To likovanje veze nema sa Trampom, već sa tragikomičnim pucnjem u nogu Lesser Evil ekipe. Stoga je beskonačno opravdanije od ovog nepametnog "Ahaha, eto sada vidite da je Tramp u stvari budala" upućenog grupi koja niti je mogla niti je htela da glasa za Trampa.

[Takeshi]

napeto je oko treceg mesta a sirija ce da ugrozi i ove na drugom.

 

[iDemo]

#jako

[Lord Protector]

Ron Maxwell: America Last?    

 

Donald Trump ran and won on a platform summarized by the slogan America First.

 

Donald Trump campaigned on a promise of no more wars of choice: no military interventions to liberate other countries, to intervene in so-called “humanitarian” crusades, to force regime change, to coercively spread democracy, or to take sides in other people’s wars or civil wars.

In summation, our military would be used only in the defense of our own country or our closest allies. This was the promise. This was the commitment to the American people made over and over again. It was contrasted with the same old, same old, discredited, interventionist policies embodied first by Jeb Bush, and most of Trump’s primary adversaries, and later by Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump offered Americans a clear, unequivocal choice: America would no longer be policeman of the world. Her sons and daughters would no longer spill their blood in far away countries for causes not directly and plainly tied to our own national security.

As we have seen, in humankind’s history, there is no end to atrocities, massacres, and bloodletting. The Middle East, in particular, is an ever-boiling cauldron of fratricide. Certainly, all people and all nations have an interest in promoting peace and an end to the killing. But it does not follow that the people of the United States should put their safety, their security, and their own people at risk to militarily interfere in these intractable conflicts, however brutal and heinous they may be. Have we learned nothing at all from our disastrous and costly military involvement of the recent sixteen years?

There is no sure way to know which belligerent used poison gas on its enemies, with the resulting horrific effects on the civilian population. We have heard the vaunted ‘government assurances’ before. Excuse this citizen of skepticism. Here is what we do know for sure: civil wars end when one side wins. Period. The longer the wars drag on, the more people are harmed, brutalized, and killed. The longer the war, the higher the civilian casualties. If we seek to lessen the horror, it is counterproductive to escalate the violence. It is a simple concept: first, do no harm.

Starting wars always seems justified in the moment. The problem is that no one knows what will happen next and no one ever knows how or when it will end. The cost in blood and treasure is inevitably greater than anyone ever thinks.

Then, there’s the question of selective outrage. Saudi Arabian warplanes have been relentlessly bombing civilian areas in Yemen for months. At least 15,000 have been killed. Where are the images of these dead and mutilated children? Where is CNN’s outrage with her sanctimonious celebrity pundits calling for regime change in Riyadh? Why hasn’t President Trump initiated a cruise missile attack on a Saudi airbase?

The question must be asked. If the United States militarily intervenes in Syria, effectively taking one barbarous side over the other, what is the effect on our own national security? Is it in the interest of the American people to further undermine any chance of constructive engagement with Russia? Is it to our advantage to return to a neo-Cold War with all the existential risks which may follow? Exactly why should the American people put their own country and their own children at greater risk?

A week ago, President Trump reiterated he is “not president of the world.” Previously he took an oath to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution – not the UN charter or some vague, high-minded, internationalist creed.

The Syrian Civil War is not America’s war. It was raging all during the presidential primaries and the election of ’16. We saw the devastation of Aleppo in the weeks before Election Day. It was all over the headlines. Trump made it abundantly clear that he would not intervene. On the other hand, Clinton advocated arming the ‘rebels’ and the risky enforcement of U.S.- imposed no-fly zones over Syria, effectively putting U.S. warplanes in hair-trigger proximity to Russian, Turkish, and Syrian fighter jets. What could possibly go wrong? The American people elected Trump. The message was loud and clear. Keep out. Stay out. It’s not our war.

But yesterday, we heard the president justifying a military attack with words that could have been spoken by Hillary Clinton. Did we have an election or didn’t we?

President Trump has a choice. He can stay the course he set in the campaign, in his inaugural speech and in the first days of his presidency, keeping America First. Or, he can succumb to the selective hysteria of the Corporate Media, to his most ardent critics, to the omnipresent chorus of NeverTrump Republicans and to the beltway’s permanent war party to choose the path of America Last.

Ron Maxwell is the writer-director of the movie, Gettysburg.

 

Edited April 9, 2017 by slow

[mustang]

pitam se da li bi rand paul ili tulsi gabbard nesto uspeli da promene...bernija ne smatram ozbiljnog osim da vristi

 

jebashe i kevu i oca iraku...a ni mi obzirom na velicinu teritorijalno ne zaostajemo...uzas uzas uzas

 

pa kad bi amerika ovoliko njih dobila, stanovnistvo bi se samoubilo samo da ne pati. ostao bi teksas ludaci i arizone da se igraju rata a mi bismo se medjusobno porokali ...slucajno. kakva nepravda. kakvo zlo sa svih strana a neduzni ginu i tacno im se zivot posere po svemu.

 

pa ti radjaj...do istrebljenja. zasluzujemo kompletan reset.

Edited April 9, 2017 by mustang

[Eraserhead]

Da je ovo 41, ovi iz Beritbarta bi bili za to da Amerika gleda svoja posla i da Americka deca ne ginu u tamo nekim sukobima ludaka na drugom kontinentu.

[mustang]

ma nadaj se...uvek se mesala i nikad joj se svet nije suprostavio

[Eraserhead]

Eto o tome i pricam.

[mlatko]

Zasto da se ne mesa ako joj nije u interesu da cenu drze neki amateri koji se bave gasovodima? Regionalna stabilnost, wtf that means? Imas Canadian sundjer na severu i Mexican chicos na jugu za perfektan McSam koji izdrkava tomahawke na Istok i sere nosace aviona na Zapad. Azija je bila Kolumbova meta, New World ima moralnu obavezu da ga ispostuje i uspostavi kontrolu nad svojom sudbinom. God bless Colon(isation).

 

 

Inviato dal mio Redmi 4 utilizzando Tapatalk

[theanswer]

Da je ovo 41, ovi iz Beritbarta bi bili za to da Amerika gleda svoja posla i da Americka deca ne ginu u tamo nekim sukobima ludaka na drugom kontinentu.

 

Zato što je Hitler u želji da pokori celu Evropu sličan Asadu koji pokušava da stekne kontrolu nad polovinom države čiji je predsednik. Da li ti pročitaš nekad ono što si napisao?

[Eraserhead]

Zato što je Hitler u želji da pokori celu Evropu sličan Asadu koji pokušava da stekne kontrolu nad polovinom države čiji je predsednik. Da li ti pročitaš nekad ono što si napisao?

Opet masis fudbal. Ne radi se tu o tome da li su Asad i Hitler slicni nego o njihovoj logici.

[Lord Protector]

Trump’s Base Revolts Against Syria Strike

Posted By Justin Raimondo On  April 9, 2017 

 

President Trump’s former enemies in the mainstream media, which he has characterized as purveyors of “fake news,” turned on a dime the moment he bombed Syria: the Establishment was thrilled that, suddenly, he was acting “presidential.” CNN, a particular target of the President’s ire, was gushing: NBC’s Brian Williams, in a bizarre turn of phrase, hailed the “beauty” of the bombing, which killed a number of civilians. Democratic party politicians, with few exceptions, stood at attention and saluted, while Trump’s Republican critics – notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham – praised the President while taking the opportunity to agitate for more extensive military action.

On the other hand, conservative media that has been supportive of Trump reviled the  move: Breitbart readers weren’t happy, and neither were some of the writers. Ann Coulter was furious, and Laura Ingraham was hardly supportive. Michael Savage declared himself a “conservative peacenik,” Tucker Carlson was very skeptical, and on Twitter, the “Trump trolls” were trolling their former hero. British populist Nigel Farage, who led the Brexit referendum to victory, and who endorsed Trump, opined that Trump voters “will be scratching their heads” in bewilderment. Even over at National Review, a neocon redoubt, the voice of dissent was raised.

In short, Trump’s most vocal supporters were joining the ranks of the antiwar movement, a development the media noted with the same vitriolic disdain it had formerly reserved for Trump himself:

 

As Carlson noted in the video above, “on this topic the news has never been faker.” Politico ran a piece excoriating “Trump’s troll army,” in rebellion against their ostensible leader’s policy, as racists and conspiracy mongers; the New York Times denounced anti-interventionists as representative of “a “small but influential white nationalist movement” on the “far right,” while the Washington Post described them as holding “racist, anti-Semitic and sexist” views.”

“Like so much news today,” said Carlson, “this isn’t news but propaganda designed to smear and deceive rather than to inform. On this topic “the ‘news’ has never been faker.”

Fake – just like the media’s coverage of Trump himself. And now that Trump has ditched one of the pillars of Trumpism, those who took it seriously are being treated exactly like he was treated before – with a barrage of outright lies.

It serves the War Party’s agenda to frame a narrative that characterizes anti-interventionists on the right as “racists,” “conspiracy-mongers,” etc., but the reality was more accurately described by Daniel McCarthy in The National Interest:

“Before he gets more deeply involved in Syria’s civil war, Donald Trump will have to win one at home. The Republican Party was already divided after failing to repeal Obamacare. Now the conflict has spread to the White House, where Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner are at daggers drawn. Even Trump’s most loyal grassroots and media supporters are in an uproar over the president’s evolving foreign policy, which has taken a turn toward the establishment as his domestic agenda sinks into the swamp he promised to drain.

“How much damage has the Syrian attack done to Trump? He’s lost Ann Coulter, who took to Twitter to vent her outrage and retweet lesser-known supporters who felt equally betrayed. He’s lost Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com and the sizable blocs of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan activists who had flocked to Trump’s ‘America First’ banner….

“The president has lost his base, or is in grave danger of doing so. But he has also picked up new support: from John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Bill Kristol, all of whom praised the airstrike on Syria. Neoconservatism is suddenly back in fashion at the White House, or so it seems.”

While I’m not sure how “losing” little old me is significant, McCarthy is entirely correct about the President’s activist base: they are defecting in droves. And while the Syria turnabout is bad news, especially for the Syrian people, there is a bright and shining silver lining.

The millions of voters who voted for Trump based, at least in part, on his “America First” foreign policy views had to experience – and embrace – what might be called “Trumpism” before they could be react in bewilderment and disgust as he turned on a dime. Trumpism, in this sense, was a bridge they had to cross before coming to a full understanding of just what “America First” means. Trump’s many denunciations of our regime change policy in Syria, Libya, and throughout the world brought them halfway across that bridge – and his betrayal is bringing many thousands of them all the way over … to us.

This is what sectarians of all stripes refuse to understand. With their static one-dimensional view of how political change comes about, they simply see Them and Us – and never the twain shall meet. How, they asked during the presidential election campaign, can those Trumpian troglodytes possibly be opposed to our foreign policy of perpetual war? What they didn’t get – and still don’t get – is that it took a catalytic figure like Trump to explode the phony left/right paradigm and imbue his supporters with some understanding of why the Empire exploits and impoverishes them. With this sudden reversal, the President is increasing their understanding of why this is so – because they aren’t going along with it.

And they aren’t going along with it because to even consider voting for Trump, while the media was hammering away at him and the Washington Establishment was sliming him as a dangerous “isolationist,” took a not inconsiderable independence of mind. Whether Trump was sincere in making his various anti-interventionist pronouncements, particularly when it came to the Syria issue, is beside the point: the point is that millions of voters took him at his word. The idea that his supporters were “fooled” by his rhetoric is similarly irrelevant. I, for one, foresaw that he would contradict himself while in office, as I wrote back in January of this year:

“That Trump is inconsistent, and an imperfect vessel, hardly needs to be said. That the danger of war still looms over us is also a fact that none can deny. Yet all this is irrelevant in the face of the conceptual victory his winning the White House represents. Here is a candidate who campaigned against GOP foreign policy orthodoxy, explicitly rejecting the legacy of the Iraq war and even going so far as to call out the Bush administration for lying us into that war….

“Yes, the Trump administration will take many actions that contradict the promise of their victory: that is already occurring. And we are covering that in these pages, without regard for partisan considerations: and yet it is necessary to step back and see the larger picture, looking past the journalistic details of the day-to-day news cycle. In short, it is necessary to take the long view and try to see what the ideological victory that was won this past November augurs for the future.”

Well, we’re living in that future right now: I have to admit it came a little sooner than I imagined, and a bit more abruptly than I thought possible. Yet that abruptness is a good thing: it dramatically underscores the contradiction between what Trump said and what he is now doing, and his most vocal supporters – particularly among the conservative opinion-making class – aren’t taking it lying down. They are in open revolt. Taking advantage of that revolt, encouraging it and highlighting the contradictions, is the task we have before us.

As I said in my January column cited above, we have to take the long view: that is, we have to understand that we’re building a movement. And the way to build that movement is not to stand aside and denounce those who are only halfway to understanding why the Empire is an albatross around our necks, but to patiently explain and let them learn why and how their leaders have betrayed them.

Betrayal is a painful experience: it is also a useful one. Physical pain is the body telling us that there’s something in the environment that must be avoided: psychic pain plays the same instructive role. As Trump’s supporters process what is undoubtedly a painful experience for them, they will realize how and why it happened – and with a little help from Antiwar.com, the best of them will come to understand how to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

The post-Trump political landscape is far better for anti-interventionists than it was before the orange-haired real estate mogul came on the scene: there now exists a considerable faction within the GOP and its periphery that not only supports an anti-interventionist foreign policy but is also in open rebellion against the policies of the President they helped elect. They are sorely disappointed, but they are also angry – and energized. Because anger, after all – anger at injustice – is the primary motivating factor in politics, and never more so than at this moment in our history.

As I said in January:

“This isn’t about Trump, the politician, or the journalistic trivia of the moment: we are engaged in a battle of ideas – and, slowly but surely, we are winning.”

We are indeed winning, and the War Party knows it: that’s why Politico, the Washington Post, and the New York Times are doing their best to marginalize the emerging antiwar movement. They won’t succeed, but our victory won’t happen overnight. Nothing worth achieving ever does. As long as we take the long view, and adopt a movement-building perspective, the case for optimism is irrefutable.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2017 by slow

[Eraserhead]

Breitbart, Ann Coutler, Alex Jones... Realno tesko je smisliti goru fasisoidnu ekipu. Nije bi cudo sto se loze na diktatora koji gasom ubija civile. Mozda bi ekipu mogli da upotpune Farage i LePen... Oh wait.

[dillinger]

Breitbart, Ann Coutler, Alex Jones... Realno tesko je smisliti goru fasisoidnu ekipu. Nije bi cudo sto se loze na diktatora koji gasom ubija civile. Mozda bi ekipu mogli da upotpune Farage i LePen... Oh wait.

 

Važno da imaš sa druge strane lib.neocon antifašistički front koji će da interveniše i poseče još jednog diktatora

[Eraserhead]

Važno da imaš sa druge strane lib.neocon antifašistički front koji će da interveniše i poseče još jednog diktatora

Realno. Ja bih se zapotao da mi se stavovi podudaraju s ovom ekipom. Bas dosta zapitao. Bas. Dosta.