[USA] SJEDINJENE AMERIČKE DRŽAVE - unutrašnja politika i uticaj na svetska kretanja

[nonick]

44 minutes ago, MeanMachine said:

 

Ne razumem čemu ova izjava rabina? Neshvatljivo jer se lako proveri i naravno da nacista ima. Umesto što je izjavio tu nebulozu mogao je reći da ih ims u Rusiji i da je Rusija friendly sa hamasom a pogotovo sa Iranom.

 

Ovako je samo omogućio da MTG i njeni fanovi imaju samo još više lozenja na teorije zavere o zlim Jevrejima...

 

Izjava rabina je sasvim na mestu. Niko ne salje pare nacistima u Ukrajini. Ono sto MTG prica niko ne hebe ni pet posto, a uskoro ni toliko, ako citas novije vesti.

 

 

 

 

[Dragan]

Istina, ili laz ?

 

 

Edited April 18 by Dragan

[Maharaja]

Putinov platni spisak u kongresu i među republikancima je poveći, ali mu je tu najveći bang for the buck i ROI. Lakše je kupiti MAGA političare nego osvojiti metar Ukrajine.

[ters]

2 hours ago, Maharaja said:

Putinov platni spisak u kongresu i među republikancima je poveći, ali mu je tu najveći bang for the buck i ROI. Lakše je kupiti MAGA političare nego osvojiti metar Ukrajine.

 

Kakav li je djuvech u glavama onih koji su navodno protiv Putina a za Trampa i MAGA... 

Edited Friday at 05:05 PM by ters

[djura.net]

1 hour ago, ters said:

Kakav li je djuvech u glavama onih koji su navodno protiv Putina a za Trampa i MAGA... 

Reko bih da nema tu djuveca, samo promaja.

Inace je Johnson izgleda razdvojio glasanja za Ukrajnu, Izrael I Aziju, tako da ce svaki predstavnik moci da shodno uverenju ili uverenju glasa za pojedinacnu pomoc.

[Mama_mia]

...a pokvarenjak iz kremlja toboz prizeljkuje Bidena kao predvidivijeg....dok zapravo gura i finansira Trumpa? A trumpove pristalice mrze tog finansijera...a demsi preziru sve osim svoje malenkosti ali ipak prizeljkuju siroku opstu podrsku....zaista ovo nije djuvec vec vise neki borsch....

 

Evo sta neki komesari misle o
Trumpovim podrzavateljima:

 

Every now and then, liberal elites bluntly say what they think about Americans who support former President Donald Trump. Barack Obama accused them of “cling[ing]” to their religion and guns. Hillary Clinton placed them in a “basket of deplorables” (“racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic”) and advocated their “formal deprogramming.” President Joe Biden has called them a “threat” to democracy. Keith Olbermann said that Trump supporters “must be removed from our society.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough claimed that Trump supporters “hate America.” David Frum simply called them “jerks.” In the New Republic, Brynn Tannehill wrote that Trump supporters “love fascism.” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says that Trump Republicans “fit the definition of fascism.” Sportscaster Bob Costas branded Trump supporters as a “toxic cult.” Most recently, former NBC television host Katie Couric described Trump supporters as “anti-intellectual.”

 

Trump supporters are blamed for their “whiteness,” their “nationalism,” and their devotion to Jesus Christ. Amanda Tyler, described as a “religious liberty expert,” told the Center for American Progress that Christian nationalism is “the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the United States today.” University of Northern Iowa professor emeritus Steve Corbin called “white Christian nationalism” a threat to democracy. Trump supporters’ resistance to “woke” policies and illegal border crossings are symptoms, according to the progressive elite, of their uneducated, cult-like following of Trump. Those citizens who support an “America First” foreign policy are derided by progressive globalists as “isolationists” and xenophobes.

Trump, to be sure, is the immediate target of all of the Left’s derision of his supporters, but the ultimate targets of the progressive elite are those Americans who choose to resist the progressive agenda in all of its forms — transgender ideology, unrestrained immigration, enforced secularism, globalist geopolitics, and rule by a progressive one-party state. Tablet’s Michael Lind has called modern-day American progressives “Jacobins” whose ideology and tactics resemble the leaders of the French Revolution. Today’s progressives, Lind writes, promote the “decline of religion,” “the expansion of politically correct, mostly economically worthless higher education,” and the “accelerating disintegration of the American family” that will result in “the expansion of core Democratic voting blocs.” Lind believes that the Democrats are counting on demographic trends coupled with their progressive policies to institutionalize one-party dominance. He calls it “Democratic hegemony.”

More than 80 years ago, political philosopher James Burnham in his indispensable book The Machiavellians described the reality of the struggles for power that are the basis for all politics, regardless of the formal political system. Borrowing from Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels, Burnham explained that every form of government — including democracy — has a “ruling class” and a class that is ruled. Pareto wrote that the best forms of government permit and encourage a “circulation of the elites” in which power periodically changes hands among elites, and the elite class is open for non-elites to someday join. According to Lind, today’s ruling progressive elites in America want to end the “circulation of elites” and maintain their power and privilege indefinitely.

Why, after all, should “deplorables” or people who “cling to their religion and guns” or members of a “toxic cult” or “fascists” or “white Christian nationalists” or xenophobes or anti-globalists have any say in how this country should be governed? Totalitarian rulers first publicly denigrate their political opponents, then attempt to cast them out of polite society, then expose them to public ridicule, then look to reeducate them and, failing that, persecute them. This often involves “show trials” that imprison political opponents. That sends a loud and clear message to the supporters of those political opponents: accept the state’s political agenda — or else. 

It was Abraham Lincoln who questioned whether government of the people, by the people, and for the people would endure. When a ruling elite categorizes half of its citizens as unworthy of participation in the political process, Lincoln’s question also endures.

 

 

....zanimljivo, ispalo je bar sudeci po H.Clinton da Trumpove pristalice jedino ne krasi antisemitizam (hmm)...ali sve najodvratnije ljudske, individualne i kolektivne osobine kao rasizam, fasizam, ksenofobija, homofobija, islamofobija - to demokrate nikako ne oprastaju. Ili mozda se ne oprasta samo jedno i to ono sto nisu spomenuli kao nesto odvratno. Antisemitizam pa to je kao nesto oprostivo.

 

 

p.s. nisam mogla bas iza svake reci da ostavljam komentar smajlijem samo gde je bilo neophodno.

 

[Klotzen]

 

Jel ovo ona što nije sporstki podnela poraz u Kongresu ?

 

[Darko]

4 hours ago, Klotzen said:

 

Jel ovo ona što nije sporstki podnela poraz u Kongresu ?

 

Da, to je ta.

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

Da, to je ta, three toed Q-Marj 

 

 

[ters]

On 4/20/2024 at 7:46 AM, Mama_mia said:

...a pokvarenjak iz kremlja toboz prizeljkuje Bidena kao predvidivijeg....dok zapravo gura i finansira Trumpa? A trumpove pristalice mrze tog finansijera...a demsi preziru sve osim svoje malenkosti ali ipak prizeljkuju siroku opstu podrsku....zaista ovo nije djuvec vec vise neki borsch....

 

Evo sta neki komesari misle o
Trumpovim podrzavateljima:

 

Every now and then, liberal elites bluntly say what they think about Americans who support former President Donald Trump. Barack Obama accused them of “cling[ing]” to their religion and guns. Hillary Clinton placed them in a “basket of deplorables” (“racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic”) and advocated their “formal deprogramming.” President Joe Biden has called them a “threat” to democracy. Keith Olbermann said that Trump supporters “must be removed from our society.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough claimed that Trump supporters “hate America.” David Frum simply called them “jerks.” In the New Republic, Brynn Tannehill wrote that Trump supporters “love fascism.” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says that Trump Republicans “fit the definition of fascism.” Sportscaster Bob Costas branded Trump supporters as a “toxic cult.” Most recently, former NBC television host Katie Couric described Trump supporters as “anti-intellectual.”

 

Trump supporters are blamed for their “whiteness,” their “nationalism,” and their devotion to Jesus Christ. Amanda Tyler, described as a “religious liberty expert,” told the Center for American Progress that Christian nationalism is “the single biggest threat to religious freedom in the United States today.” University of Northern Iowa professor emeritus Steve Corbin called “white Christian nationalism” a threat to democracy. Trump supporters’ resistance to “woke” policies and illegal border crossings are symptoms, according to the progressive elite, of their uneducated, cult-like following of Trump. Those citizens who support an “America First” foreign policy are derided by progressive globalists as “isolationists” and xenophobes.

Trump, to be sure, is the immediate target of all of the Left’s derision of his supporters, but the ultimate targets of the progressive elite are those Americans who choose to resist the progressive agenda in all of its forms — transgender ideology, unrestrained immigration, enforced secularism, globalist geopolitics, and rule by a progressive one-party state. Tablet’s Michael Lind has called modern-day American progressives “Jacobins” whose ideology and tactics resemble the leaders of the French Revolution. Today’s progressives, Lind writes, promote the “decline of religion,” “the expansion of politically correct, mostly economically worthless higher education,” and the “accelerating disintegration of the American family” that will result in “the expansion of core Democratic voting blocs.” Lind believes that the Democrats are counting on demographic trends coupled with their progressive policies to institutionalize one-party dominance. He calls it “Democratic hegemony.”

More than 80 years ago, political philosopher James Burnham in his indispensable book The Machiavellians described the reality of the struggles for power that are the basis for all politics, regardless of the formal political system. Borrowing from Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels, Burnham explained that every form of government — including democracy — has a “ruling class” and a class that is ruled. Pareto wrote that the best forms of government permit and encourage a “circulation of the elites” in which power periodically changes hands among elites, and the elite class is open for non-elites to someday join. According to Lind, today’s ruling progressive elites in America want to end the “circulation of elites” and maintain their power and privilege indefinitely.

Why, after all, should “deplorables” or people who “cling to their religion and guns” or members of a “toxic cult” or “fascists” or “white Christian nationalists” or xenophobes or anti-globalists have any say in how this country should be governed? Totalitarian rulers first publicly denigrate their political opponents, then attempt to cast them out of polite society, then expose them to public ridicule, then look to reeducate them and, failing that, persecute them. This often involves “show trials” that imprison political opponents. That sends a loud and clear message to the supporters of those political opponents: accept the state’s political agenda — or else. 

It was Abraham Lincoln who questioned whether government of the people, by the people, and for the people would endure. When a ruling elite categorizes half of its citizens as unworthy of participation in the political process, Lincoln’s question also endures.

 

 

....zanimljivo, ispalo je bar sudeci po H.Clinton da Trumpove pristalice jedino ne krasi antisemitizam (hmm)...ali sve najodvratnije ljudske, individualne i kolektivne osobine kao rasizam, fasizam, ksenofobija, homofobija, islamofobija - to demokrate nikako ne oprastaju. Ili mozda se ne oprasta samo jedno i to ono sto nisu spomenuli kao nesto odvratno. Antisemitizam pa to je kao nesto oprostivo.

 

 

p.s. nisam mogla bas iza svake reci da ostavljam komentar smajlijem samo gde je bilo neophodno.

 

Osim Olbermana, ko od pobrojanih je pogrijesio?

[Mama_mia]

On 4/22/2024 at 8:37 AM, ters said:

Osim Olbermana, ko od pobrojanih je pogrijesio?

zar pricamo o tome ko je nesto u svom stavu pogresno rekao? Pa ne, upravo podvlacimo stavove, stavovi koji su meni idiotski nekome su bezgresni i podrzava ih.

 

Npr. ima stav one kravetine Ilhan Omar koja je sva ponosna na hapsenje svoje cerke koja sebe dozivljava kao hyper-woke , veliku antisemitkinju i pro-hamasovku. Nekome je to idiotluk, neko podrzava....Ko je od njih 0pogresio?

 

 

Gallup reports that only 38% of voters see President Biden as a "strong and decisive leader", compared to 57% who think Trump has those attributes. They hope Alvin Bragg’s* trial will eliminate that divide.  

 

* Alvin and the chipmunks veruju u to. Da li su pogresili?

[ters]

6 hours ago, Mama_mia said:

zar pricamo o tome ko je nesto u svom stavu pogresno rekao? Pa ne, upravo podvlacimo stavove, stavovi koji su meni idiotski nekome su bezgresni i podrzava ih.

 

Npr. ima stav one kravetine Ilhan Omar koja je sva ponosna na hapsenje svoje cerke koja sebe dozivljava kao hyper-woke , veliku antisemitkinju i pro-hamasovku. Nekome je to idiotluk, neko podrzava....Ko je od njih 0pogresio?

 

 

Gallup reports that only 38% of voters see President Biden as a "strong and decisive leader", compared to 57% who think Trump has those attributes. They hope Alvin Bragg’s* trial will eliminate that divide.  

 

* Alvin and the chipmunks veruju u to. Da li su pogresili?

 

Biti "strong and decisive" ne znaci da donosi dobre odluke - puna je istorija tih "strong i decisive" tipova koji su vodili ljude u katastrofe... Churchill, "strong i decisive" je poslao trupe na Galipolje... Lysenko, stron i decisive, je odlucio da zakoni genetike ne vrijede, i uzrokovao glad u kojoj su umrli milioni... Milosevic, "strong i decisive" je upropastio zivote barem 15 miliona ljudi. 

 

A kada pricamo o stavovima - ne treba relativizovati stvari, postoje stvari koje su cinjenicne, i postoje mehanizmi kojima se te cinjenice utvrdjuju. Ne znam zbog cega je hapsena kcerka Ilhan Omar, ali ako je prekrsila zakon to je cinjenicno stanje i nema nikakve veze sa bilo cijim stavom. Ako je Trampova struja u republikanskoj partiji, i on sam, uradila sve da se Ukrajini ogranici mogucnost odbrane u posljednjih nekoliko mjeseci - to je cinjenica, a ne stav. Slabljenje odbrane Ukrajine je islo u korist samo Putinu - ne Americi, ne Evropi, ne Tunguziji - to je opet cinjenica, a ne stav...

Edited Tuesday at 08:19 PM by ters

[Mama_mia]

2ters

Sta si tacno hteo da objanis u toj ruskoj salati od galipolja do tunguzije? Da je stav nebitan? Pa i zakon ima svoj stav a to je da ga se pridrzavas. Izgleda da, za razliku od onih koji su razumeli  ja ne razumem sta hoces da kazes iako sam bila konkretna, ispada kao da pokusavas da razvijes filozofsku raspravu oko cinjenica.

 

Sto se tice, slucajno odabranog c/p - strong and decisive - gde si procitao da se kaze da to znaci donosenje dobrih odluka, pa to je obicno pitanje, sroceno by gallup i potpuno usput postavljeno kao i milioni slicnih pitanja da se vidi koji kandidat gde stoji u procentima na nekom malom uzorku.....A ono sto sam zaista u postu napisala - to sam jasno i napisala....nema potrebe da se to pretvori u Ukrajinu, cherchila, putina,milosevica itd. bog zna sta si sve nabrojao ....

 

...u svakom slucaju moji licni stavovi su uvek nekako u skladu sa zakonima...dok stav kravetitine kcerke i ostalih i zaprepascujucih slicnih pojava - nije. Ako vec nece da budu normalni i mislie da mogu da velicaju teroriste, u tom slucaju - pusku na rame pa u Gazu - to je jedini pravi stav ako je do pravog prohamasovskog stava. Sve ostalo je budaletisanje ali zapravo cisto zlo u skoli i na ulici....

 

Da li gresim?