Jump to content
Vox92.net Forum
McCarthy

[USA] SJEDINJENE AMERICKE DRZAVE - unutrašnja politika i uticaj na svetska kretanja

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Dvoumio sam se da li da je naslovim isto kao na f92, ali sam se odlucio za formalniji naziv.

 

Anyways, fina obzervacija profesora Panosa Mourdoukoutasa za FORBES:


 

Quote

 

Iran Oil Sanctions: China Isn't Ready To Confront America -- Yet

 

America’s determination to enforce sanctions and drive Iran’s oil exports to zero have put China in a box. When it comes to the policy options to deal with the situation that is.

This is evidenced by the way Beijing responded following Washington’s announcement that it won’t extend the exceptions granted to a group of six countries from the Iran Oil export sanctions (China was one of them).

In a Globaltimes editorial posted on Tuesday, Beijing avoided using harsh criticism against Washington. Instead, it confined itself to trying to “clarify” China’s interests in the Middle East and the ways it can cut the potential losses from the sanctions.

“We think China should clarify its interests and principles surrounding the purchase of the oil from the Middle East nation and strive to minimize the loss of China's national interests,” says the editorial

Beijing also stated its intention to work with Europeans and Russians to maintain good relations with Iran. “China needs to jointly safeguard Iran nuclear agreement with Britain, France, Germany and Russia, and also needs to maintain friendly and cooperative relations with Iran,” added the editorial.

Apparently, China isn’t ready to confront the US, not yet. It doesn’t have the right geopolitical and military might to do so. And the time isn’t right either, with trade negotiations underway.

Still, Athens-based oil analyst Theophanis Matsopoulos sees China suffering big losses from a cut-off from the Iranian oil market.

“The USA is declaring trading war against major economic entities like China and EU,” says Matsopoulos. “The recent waiver regarding imports of Iranian oil will boost the crude price even higher since approximately 2 million barrels will be taken off the market on daily basis. This will accelerate inflation of the Chinese economy and will push it towards an even sharper slowdown.”

Meanwhile, Matsopoulos doesn’t see Europeans siding with China on the issue. “Countries that are directly related to the Chinese investment plan like the One Belt One Road (OBOR) will support China,” he says. “The EU does not have a common foreign policy in important matters and especially with complicated domestic issues taking place  like the rise of euroscepticism, the Brexit and the Italian hardline approach. There is no room for working against the powerful and solid American foreign policy.”

However Jeff Yastine, Senior Equities Analyst at Banyan Hill Publishing, doesn’t think that Washington is serious with its threat to fully enforce Iran oil sanctions.

“The last time the  administration raised this issue, it turned out to be a "paper tiger" threat,” he notes. “The White House never followed through and ultimately said ‘Forget about it’ instead of delivering on threatened punishments with Iran's biggest oil partners. I expect this to be much of the same. It's designed for domestic political purposes moreso than geopolitical ones.“

Like pleasing American frackers—the big beneficiaries of higher oil prices.

There’s a good reason why Washington cannot follow through on tougher oil sanctions with Iran’s oil partners, according to Yastine — “it ultimately hurts (the) domestic agenda, not the least of which is higher oil prices -- which will suck the wind right out of the current rally in the stock market if we see oil go past last year's highs of $75 a barrel.”

 

 

Edited by Eddard
naslov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Podrzavam drugaciji naziv i diskusiju koja ce se voditi u normalnim okvirima.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, McLeod said:

Podrzavam drugaciji naziv i diskusiju koja ce se voditi u normalnim okvirima.

Meche ovi tvoji postovi bot 1/1

Podrzavam

Diskusiha

Okviri

 

Fali samo linč, silovanje, nasilje

 

🙂 😂😂😂

 

Edit:

Jedna slichka da ne bude da samo njam 😉

I da mi ostane u feed

usaaa.jpg

Edited by Squabbit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Možda dodati u naslov 'i uticaj na svetska kretanja'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Trump and Democrats Agree to Pursue $2 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

April 30, 2019

 

WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional leaders emerged from a meeting at the White House on Tuesday and announced that President Trump had agreed to pursue a $2 trillion infrastructure plan to upgrade the nation’s highways, railroads, bridges and broadband.

 

Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, said that there had been “good will” in the meeting and that it was “different from some of the other meetings that we’ve had.” Speaking alongside Speaker Nancy Pelosi, he said the group planned to meet again in three weeks, when Mr. Trump was expected to tell them how he planned to actually pay for the ambitious project.

 

The first substantive sit-down between Mr. Trump and Democratic leadership since the 35-day government shutdown last winter unfolded at a tense moment.

 

Since their last face-to-face meeting at the White House, the special counsel released his 448-page report detailing Mr. Trump’s monthslong effort to thwart an investigation that loomed over his presidency. Ms. Pelosi, since then, has tried to caution her colleagues against impeaching the president, while facing growing pressure from her caucus and from 2020 Democratic presidential contenders to do so.

 

Mr. Trump is also going to great lengths to stonewall expanding investigations by House Democrats, resisting efforts to obtain his tax returns, preventing former aides from testifying and even pursuing legal action against Deutsche Bank, a longtime lender to the Trump Organization, and another bank to stop them from responding to congressional subpoenas.

But speaking to reporters on the driveway outside of the West Wing, Mr. Schumer told reporters there was no issue with pursuing both oversight and legislation along parallel tracks.

“In previous meetings, the president has said if these investigations continue, I can’t work with you,” Mr. Schumer said of the president.

 

“He didn’t bring it up. I believe we can do both at once,” Mr. Schumer added. “The two are not mutually exclusive, and we were glad he didn’t make it that way.”

 

“Infrastructure Week” has become a recurring trope of the Trump presidency. A $1 trillion infrastructure plan remains one of Mr. Trump’s unfulfilled promises from his 2016 campaign. The effort took a back seat to the administration’s failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and then to its successful passage of a tax overhaul in 2017.

Editors’ Picks

 

The original plan was also one that everyone rejected from the beginning — Mr. Trump even criticized public-private partnerships, which were key to the plan’s financing — and no new plan has been put forward since.

 

But Democrats went to the White House for a meeting, intent to play along as if there was a chance.

 

Ms. Pelosi requested the meeting with Mr. Trump in April, in part to change the conversation from impeachment to infrastructure and to demonstrate that Democrats want to proceed with a policy agenda, and not merely with oversight investigations of the president.

For Mr. Trump, an infrastructure deal would provide him with a bipartisan achievement he could point to while campaigning.

Democrats arrived on Tuesday with a dozen-member delegation of lawmakers. Mr. Trump was accompanied in the meeting by Elaine Chao, the transportation secretary, as well as seven White House aides, including his daughter Ivanka Trump, who is also a presidential adviser; Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council; and Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel.

 

The only members of Mr. Trump’s team to speak were Mr. Kudlow and Ms. Chao, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

Democrats have become prepared for surprises during meetings with Mr. Trump. In the past, he has conducted supposedly closed-door sessions on live television, or shuttled his guests to the Situation Room for maximum privacy.

 

They, in turn, have surprised him by quickly reporting out the top lines of their meetings, speaking to reporters on the driveway in front of the White House. In September 2017, for instance, after Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi joined the president for in-house Chinese food, they announced that Mr. Trump had agreed to work on an immigration deal, including protections for thousands of young immigrants from deportation. Mr. Trump was later forced to backtrack from that position.

 

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

 

On Tuesday, the 90-minute meeting took place behind closed doors and stayed broadly on topic. There was no discussion of hauling in the television cameras, according to a congressional aide.

 

While Mr. Trump has abruptly walked out on congressional leaders before, the mood on Tuesday stayed friendly. Extending a peace offering of sorts, Mr. Trump at one point offered Ms. Pelosi a white Tic Tac, which she accepted, according to a Democratic aide. At one point, the president noted that he liked the $2 trillion figure because it sounded better than $1.9 trillion.

But congressional leaders’ tactic of trying to stage-manage Oval Office meetings with Mr. Trump — and even hiking over to the White House for the meeting in the first place — struck some Democrats as out of step.

 

“We’re in the middle of a constitutional crisis here,” said Brian Fallon, a former aide to Mr. Schumer. “The most important job the Democrats have right now is to uphold the rule of law against a president who thinks the law doesn’t apply to him. We have bigger fish to fry than trying to look like we gave it a shot on infrastructure. This was the play in 2016. It strikes me as a very pre-Trump approach for how to manage.”

 

Speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles on Tuesday, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, also expressed deep skepticism about the possibility of an infrastructure deal with Democrats. He said the two parties had major differences on the scope and timing of a plan, and he questioned Democrats’ intentions.

 

Mr. Mulvaney said he had advised the president that Republicans must push for environmental deregulation so new projects could get built within two years. He suggested that under current regulations, a trillion dollars’ worth of spending might not lead to new roads or bridges being built for 10 years.

 

“I want to change the environmental laws, how do you feel about that as a Democrat?” Mr. Mulvaney said. “It’s going to be a very difficult place for them to go. I think that may be the place where the discussions break down.”

 

Indeed, Mr. Schumer and Ms. Pelosi made it clear before the meeting that a deal must include funding to curb rising planet-warming emissions and protect against its effects.

Mr. Mulvaney was speaking the morning after experiencing a painful kidney stone. “It was a fun night, but it’s better than going to the meeting at the White House with Chuck and Nancy,” he joked.

 

For Democrats, the strategy appeared to put the onus on Mr. Trump to deliver a real plan and to lock him into the enthusiasm they said he showed privately.

“The key to the discussion, really, was the willingness of the president,” said Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “By the end of the meeting, he said, ‘I have responsibility to lead on this front as well, and I’m prepared to do so.’ ”

During the meeting, Mr. Trump also brought up trade and health care legislation, particularly the push to pass his rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress.

Mr. Trump, who has recently vacillated on potentially introducing a Republican replacement for the Affordable Care Act, also raised the 2017 bipartisan deal proposed by Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, that would fund critical subsidies to insurers.

“That was a good deal — we should revisit that,” Mr. Carper recalled the president saying of the deal.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/us/politics/trump-infrastructure-plan.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mislim da nominacija Bajdena kao predsedničkog kandidata predstavlja bitnu prekretnicu u naporima demokrata da se sruši štetočina Trump. Mnogi mu ne daju prevelike šanse ukoliko bi se direktno suočio s njim ali vidim da je demokratska stranka uozbiljila svoju političku strategiju, da ima podršku sindikata a čiji predstavnici naglašavaju da se od nekakvih levičarskih trtljavina politika vratila konkretnim i realnim političkim ciljevima. Naravno, Bajden shvata da će kandidat republikanaca u finalu biti Trump (republikanska stranka se pretvorila u Trumpov servis) i jedini je od demokratskih kandidata koji se potpuno okrenuo kritici ove štetočine i njegove politike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A kako je Trump stetocina? Ne radi ono sto ti zelis da radi? Njemu raste popularnost, pa ti vidi jel stetocina ili nije.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trumpu popularnost raste, posto on politicki i poslovno vuce pravilne poteze. Demokrate samo kukaju i vicu impeach, ali od toga nista nece biti. Trump je ekonomski nagazio one koji nece da glasaju za njega i boli ga briga. Tax brackets are set so dinkies in California pay the price for these who can not afford to earn. Boli ga uvo, demokrate i lezlilebudatejedem sindikati mogu samo da se uhvate za usi i da igraju.

 

DT je izabrani predsednik u 2020, ali to samo demokratama nije jasno. On je izabrani predsednik iz prostog razloga sto je narodu vise muka od majmuna koji nipodastavaju posten rad!

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A kako je Trump stetocina? Ne radi ono sto ti zelis da radi? Njemu raste popularnost, pa ti vidi jel stetocina ili nije.

 

Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

 

Uzima 2020. laganica.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, melankolic said:

Mislim da nominacija Bajdena kao predsedničkog kandidata predstavlja bitnu prekretnicu u naporima demokrata da se sruši štetočina Trump. Mnogi mu ne daju prevelike šanse ukoliko bi se direktno suočio s njim ali vidim da je demokratska stranka uozbiljila svoju političku strategiju, da ima podršku sindikata a čiji predstavnici naglašavaju da se od nekakvih levičarskih trtljavina politika vratila konkretnim i realnim političkim ciljevima. Naravno, Bajden shvata da će kandidat republikanaca u finalu biti Trump (republikanska stranka se pretvorila u Trumpov servis) i jedini je od demokratskih kandidata koji se potpuno okrenuo kritici ove štetočine i njegove politike.

 

Voleo bih da Bajden bude kandidat demokrata, to bi znacilo pocetak njihovog povratak u neke normalne tokove, ali iskreno sumnjam u to. Previse su otisli ulevo da bi se to tek tako vratilo. Sanders je za mene u ovom trenutku ipak favorit za demokratsku nominaciju. Naravno, ima jos mnogo vremena i svasta moze da se promeni, plus su oboje prilicno stari.

 

Pa naravno da ce republikanci kandidovti Trampa kad je aktuelni predsednik, pa nije se desilo jedno sto godina da aktuelnog predsednika ne podrzi partija.

 

Za ove izbore, ce biti jako bitni kandidati za potpredsednike, jer nije nerealno da umru za vreme mandata ko god da pobedi, Tramp, Bajden ili Sanders. 

 

Za mene Tramp je favorit, posebno ako se Sulc kandiduje. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Da li Tramp uzima ili ne, zavisi od stanja privatnih penzionih fondova (401k, IRA i slicno), sto opet zavisi od berze, sto opet zavisi od ekonomije. Prosla godina je bila losa za fondove, ali je prvi kvartal to nadoknadio. Zasto kazem "fondovi" a ne "nezaposlenost" ili "dnevnice"? Zato sto oni koji imaju vise u fondu mogu vise da izgube, a to su stariji ljudi koji i inace redovno glasaju, njima nije potrebna motivacija da izadju kao mladjim ljudima.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A sad said:

 

Voleo bih da Bajden bude kandidat demokrata, to bi znacilo pocetak njihovog povratak u neke normalne tokove, ali iskreno sumnjam u to. Previse su otisli ulevo da bi se to tek tako vratilo. Sanders je za mene u ovom trenutku ipak favorit za demokratsku nominaciju. Naravno, ima jos mnogo vremena i svasta moze da se promeni, plus su oboje prilicno stari.

 

 

"otisli predaleko levo" je mit. Oni ne mogu da se vise pozicioniraju kao Republican Lite, oni moraju da nadju jasnu diferencijaciju. Ne mora bas "medicare for all", bilo bi dovoljno da izadju sa predlogom da se medicare prosiri na decu, i da ukljuci porodjaj i pre-natal care. Prica oko abortusa uzima previse energije bez veze, oni treba da okrenu pricu i da kazu "ajde da eliminisemo high child mortality rate". Ne mora "univerzal basic income", mogu da idu na platformu da se poveca budzet za zbrinjavanje mentalno obolelih ljudi i za lecenje zavisnika od droge. Itd, itsl. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ObiW said:

 

"otisli predaleko levo" je mit. Oni ne mogu da se vise pozicioniraju kao Republican Lite, oni moraju da nadju jasnu diferencijaciju. Ne mora bas "medicare for all", bilo bi dovoljno da izadju sa predlogom da se medicare prosiri na decu, i da ukljuci porodjaj i pre-natal care. Prica oko abortusa uzima previse energije bez veze, oni treba da okrenu pricu i da kazu "ajde da eliminisemo high child mortality rate". Ne mora "univerzal basic income", mogu da idu na platformu da se poveca budzet za zbrinjavanje mentalno obolelih ljudi i za lecenje zavisnika od droge. Itd, itsl. 

Ali to bi znacilo i da moraju da utisaju najglasnije ultra-levicare u svojim redovima, a to ce tesko da prodje.

Mislim da ni Bajden ne moze da okrene trenutnu situaciju. Osim ako se nesto drsticno ne bi desilo sa ekonomijom.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ObiW said:

 

"otisli predaleko levo" je mit. Oni ne mogu da se vise pozicioniraju kao Republican Lite, oni moraju da nadju jasnu diferencijaciju. Ne mora bas "medicare for all", bilo bi dovoljno da izadju sa predlogom da se medicare prosiri na decu, i da ukljuci porodjaj i pre-natal care. Prica oko abortusa uzima previse energije bez veze, oni treba da okrenu pricu i da kazu "ajde da eliminisemo high child mortality rate". Ne mora "univerzal basic income", mogu da idu na platformu da se poveca budzet za zbrinjavanje mentalno obolelih ljudi i za lecenje zavisnika od droge. Itd, itsl. 

 

Ostatak se slazem. 

 

Bold nije mit, Sanders, Gree new deal i slicne pojave nisu mit, to je realnost. I to jeste previse levo i to ne samo za USA uslove.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ja sam imao tu sreću (ili bolje reći nesreću) da mi je dio šire familije preko bare. Svi me se redom odrekli kad sam rekao da će Trump dobiti izbore 😄

Neki su čak plakali "kod nas u salonu" zajedno sa customers.


Nisam mogao vjerovati da je takav nivo indoktrinacije moguć, da žena od 50 ljeta plače jer je neko izgubio izbore ? Drugarica kaže da ne sme reći sinu da je Trump president, jer ako se slučajno izlane u razredu imaće problema !!! Mali je prvi razred i stanuju u nekom kvartu DC-a gdje su većinom ti obamini uhljebi, dakle 99% libtardi.


Rekao sam joj, doslovno "Ma mi smo amerika za vas" 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, A sad said:

 

Ostatak se slazem. 

 

Bold nije mit, Sanders, Gree new deal i slicne pojave nisu mit, to je realnost. I to jeste previse levo i to ne samo za USA uslove.

U pitanju je proces diferencijacije. Ne kazem da ce on biti uspesan odmah sada, ali je proces pokrenut, sto je najbitnije. Mi smo sve do Sandersa ver 2016 imali pricu da je "medicare for all" non-starter, i sad je dve godine kasnije vecina Demokrata za to. Znaci vidis da moze da se pomera i ulevo a ne samo udesno, sto su ovi veselnici radili od 1994. Inace "medicare for all" (ili nesto slicno) je bila platforma demokrata pocetkom devedesetih, a onda je to postalo babaroga.   

 

Inace su se devedesetih Demokrate i Republikanci utrkiviali ko ce da obeca strozije kazne zatvora za posedovanje droge, ko ce da izgradi vise zatvora, i ima bolju ideju za privatizaciju  zatvora. Kada je ispalo da drakonske kazne prave od sitnih prekrsaja (gram kokaina u kesici) profesionalne kriminalce koji se cesto vracaju nazad u zatvor (5 godina u americkom zatvoru cuda cine) e sad se odjednom svi slazu da treba da se smanji obavezna kazna, a mariuana se legalizuje. Mislim da to, iz perspektive Amerikanca of pre 25 godina nije "previse ulevo"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bajden i Sanders tesko mogu dobiti Trampa. Suvise su etablirani i Tramp vec ima odgovor na njihovu kampanju. 

 

Manje poznat kandidat, koji bi imao drugaciju platformu, ne iskljucivo anti Trampovu bi imao bolje sanse. 

 

Zato Tramp izgleda navija za Bejdena, tvituje dnevno o njemu i zeli da demokratski glasaci misle da je on najopasniji kandidat. 

 

Realno, izvori ce se resavati u trouglu ohajo-micigen- pensilvanija, ne znam sta novo moze da im ponudi Bajden. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...