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

[deez nuts.]

Andjo, koju novinsku agenciju zelis da linkujem glede ove obavijesti? Ima ih koliko hoces...

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

9 hours ago, Sprivel said:

Andjo, koju novinsku agenciju zelis da linkujem glede ove obavijesti? Ima ih koliko hoces...

 

Ne mora uopste novinska agencija, evo ima i ovde:

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/elliott-broidy-pleads-guilty-back-channel-lobbying-campaign-drop-1mdb-investigation-and

[Angelia]

11 hours ago, Sprivel said:

Andjo, koju novinsku agenciju zelis da linkujem glede ove obavijesti? Ima ih koliko hoces...

Upravo. Ocigledno nisi razumeo komentar.

[Angelia]

Odlican text:

 

Today, every instance in which Democrats are denied a political victory is immediately transformed into a national “crisis” in which the public has “lost faith” in a system that worked perfectly fine when they were in power. Not that long ago, self-interest was a motivation for defending deliberative politics and republican order. But these days, undeterred by reality, partisans have convinced themselves they’ll be in power forever.

It’s not merely the progressive fringe that demands Democrats blow up the courts. It is the partisan, self-proclaimed defenders of “norms.” In a recent piece in The Atlantic, the nation’s leading periodical of intellectual anti-constitutionalism, Lawfare’s Quinta Jurecic and Susan Hennessey argue that “if Republicans continue the smash-and-grab approach to confirming Barrett,” court packing “may be the only way for Democrats to save the Court.”

The duly elected president and the duly elected Senate are observing the constitutionally stipulated guidelines for placing a highly qualified jurist on the Court. Someone will need to do a better job of explaining how dismantling the Court will “save” it. Now, perhaps if you’ve lost the ability to differentiate between ends and means, the idea makes intuitive sense to you. Perhaps you nod along as Biden spuriously argues that Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination is nothing more than the exploitation of a “loophole” to undo the Affordable Care Act, ignoring the fact that we don’t know how she’ll rule on the Obamacare lawsuit (and the fact that either way, Obamacare isn’t some untouchable edict handed down from Mount Sinai). But back here in the real world, we know that court-packing would be far more destructive to our political order than anything Donald Trump has done, Barrett’s nomination very much included.

The notion that the Senate shouldn’t confirm Trump’s nominee because Biden might win the election or Trump lost the “popular vote” is highly dubious. Justices do not need consent of the majority, nor should they seek it. As Clark Neily, the vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, recently noted, some of the Supreme Court’s “most reviled cases—including Dred Scott (slavery), Plessy (separate-but-equal), and Buck v Bell (eugenics)—involved acceding to democratically enacted policies. I can think of no higher compliment to pay a judge than to characterize her as antidemocratic.”

And that’s if Democrats take the charge seriously, which all evidence suggests they don’t: Remember, they had no problem with this “anti-democratic” institution when it was creating constitutional rights to gay marriage and abortion. It only becomes a problem for them when it threatens to defend the Bill of Rights.

[nonick]

mali off

najcesce ne ostavljas link. 

 

Sto se tice texta, pa malcenje prazne slame. Da nisu rekli da ne bi bio fer da Obama postavlja sudiju 8 meseci pred izbora - onda bi text imao smisla. Isto tako nema smisla ni demokrate da nesto previse histerisu jer je sve po zakonu. Kako bi tek republikanci padali u trans da je obrnuto ili da demokratskom predsedniku njie briga za ruske mahinacije - to bi bio kraj sveta za njih.

[Angelia]

1 hour ago, nonick said:

mali off

najcesce ne ostavljas link. 

 

Sto se tice texta, pa malcenje prazne slame. Da nisu rekli da ne bi bio fer da Obama postavlja sudiju 8 meseci pred izbora - onda bi text imao smisla. Isto tako nema smisla ni demokrate da nesto previse histerisu jer je sve po zakonu. Kako bi tek republikanci padali u trans da je obrnuto ili da demokratskom predsedniku njie briga za ruske mahinacije - to bi bio kraj sveta za njih.

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-flirting-destruction-judiciary-103028450.html

 

Obama nije mogao da postavi sudiju jer nije imao Senat, on je kakndidovao svog kandidata ali je Senat odbio. Znaci situacija je drugacija, nije ista. Da je obrnuto, republikanci isto ne bi mogli nista.

 

Poenta texta nije da se ne bi oni zalili, nego da taj i takav sud sa takvim pravilima - postoji jako dugo, i da se demokrate nisu zalile kad je to bilo u njihovu korist. Sad im je sud naprasno ne-legitiman.

[A sad]

28 sudija je nominovano u poslednjoj godini mandata.

[nonick]

3 hours ago, Angelia said:

https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-flirting-destruction-judiciary-103028450.html

 

Obama nije mogao da postavi sudiju jer nije imao Senat, on je kakndidovao svog kandidata ali je Senat odbio. Znaci situacija je drugacija, nije ista. Da je obrnuto, republikanci isto ne bi mogli nista.

 

Poenta texta nije da se ne bi oni zalili, nego da taj i takav sud sa takvim pravilima - postoji jako dugo, i da se demokrate nisu zalile kad je to bilo u njihovu korist. Sad im je sud naprasno ne-legitiman.

 

dobro, sledeci put procitaj sta pisem.

 

Ali da ponovim. Ja nigde nisam rekao da je situacija ista. Ali recimo da je republikanskom predsedniku receno od strane demokrata da nije fer postavljati sudije 8 meseci pre izbora (iako mozda nije ni u mogucnosti da postavi). A posle demokratski predsednik postavi sudiju 3 nedelje pre izbora. Mislis da se republikanci ne bi bunili? I da, oni ne bi mogli nista ni kao sto ni sada demokrate ne mogu nista sem da histerisu. Ali bi poludeli zbog toga, a zamisli tek ako demokratski predsednik ne bi reagovao, cak ponekad ludacki odobravao, na mahinacije rusa u vezi unutrasnje politike USA.

 

 

 

[Angelia]

1 hour ago, nonick said:

 

dobro, sledeci put procitaj sta pisem.

 

Ali da ponovim. Ja nigde nisam rekao da je situacija ista. Ali recimo da je republikanskom predsedniku receno od strane demokrata da nije fer postavljati sudije 8 meseci pre izbora (iako mozda nije ni u mogucnosti da postavi). A posle demokratski predsednik postavi sudiju 3 nedelje pre izbora. Mislis da se republikanci ne bi bunili? I da, oni ne bi mogli nista ni kao sto ni sada demokrate ne mogu nista sem da histerisu. Ali bi poludeli zbog toga, a zamisli tek ako demokratski predsednik ne bi reagovao, cak ponekad ludacki odobravao, na mahinacije rusa u vezi unutrasnje politike USA.

 

 

 

The first nomination during an election year in the twentieth century came on March 13, 1912, when  President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.  The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Pitney on March 18, 1912, by a vote of fifty to twenty-six.

President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916.  On January 28, 1916, Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916, by a vote of forty-seven to twenty-two.  Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916 to run (unsuccessfully) for president as a Republican.  On July 14, 1916, Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace him; Clarke was confirmed unanimously ten days later.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover (a Republican) nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired on January 12, 1932.  A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Cardozo by a unanimous voice vote on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt (a Democrat) nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939; Murphy was confirmed by a heavily Democratic Senate on January 16, 1940, by a voice vote.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan (a Republican) nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell.  A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Kennedy (who followed Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg as nominees for that slot) on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

 

Znaci i demokrate i republikanci to radili i ranije pa se nije histerisalo, i nije se SC proglasavao ne-legitimnim, i nije se pricalo o packing the court.

[deez nuts.]

MAGA2020 [emoji23]

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/dutch-hacker-trump-twitter-account-password/

[Cyrus Smith]

10 hours ago, Angelia said:

Znaci i demokrate i republikanci to radili i ranije pa se nije histerisalo, i nije se SC proglasavao ne-legitimnim, i nije se pricalo o packing the court.

Ne  priča se samo o vrhovnom sudu nego i o promeni izbornog sistema za predsednika sa elektorskog na jedan čovek jedan glas i obesmišljavanju ili ukidanju senata. Čak navodno i o stvaranju novih država, mada sam to čuo iz izvora koji je definitvno konzervativno nastrojen.

 

Da su u pitanju stare demokrate to i ne bi bio problem. Biden je već najavio da će formirati komisiju da ispita stvari oko vrhovnog suda a to, objasnio još Čerčil, znači da najverovatnije želi da izbegne da se uopšte bavi time i da se nada da će stvar da legne u zaborav. U ovom trenutku međutim, demokrate su pod pritiskom radikala koji aposlutno žele sve to i još rasne reparacije, potpunu liberalizaciju imigracije do jednostranog ukidanja granica, primenu CRT u svim sferama života, dopuštanje tranzicije u razne gendere dece koja ne mogu sama ni do škole da idu ali da odluče da odlože pubertet mogu.

 

Ja ne vidim kako fosili kao Biden i Pelosi mogu da ih zaustave. I oni i mlađe demokrate tipa Klobuchar ili onog gay gradonačenika su pretravljeni ucenama radikala za šta sa sami krivi. Takođe ne vidim kako pokušaj sprovođenja tako radikalnog programa može da prođe bez ogromne krize sve do pokušaja secesije nekih država. Da je u pitanju neka Nigerija ili Bangladeš pa da slegnem  ramenima, njihov izbor, njihova stvar. USA su ipak nešto drugo, previše stvari u sveti zavisi od njih. Još ako Kina i/ili Turska (dodaj po želji) odluče da reše Tajvan/Kipar/Whatever stvari mogu da odu južno prilično brzo.

[bohumilo]

Demokraturska tehnologija crnokosuljastva***:

 

https://nypost.com/2020/10/18/san-francisco-free-speech-rally-attacked-by-counter-protestors/

  

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

 

Jedan fasista je uhapsen i optuzen za zlocin iz mrznje:

BLM activist charged with hate crime over assault of black conservative in San Francisco

 

Quote

 Androa was arrested in 2018 for allegedly running a drug sales operation while using a medicinal marijuana card. During the bust at Anderson’s residence, law enforcement seized loaded guns and almost $100,000 of suspected drug sales profits.

 

 

***
>>>

Colectivos ([ko.lek'ti.βos], "collectives") are irregular, leftist Venezuelan community organizations that support Nicolás Maduro, the Bolivarian government, the Great Patriotic Pole (GPP) political alliance and the party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).[3][4][5] Colectivo has become an umbrella term for armed paramilitary groups that operate in poverty-stricken areas and attack individuals,[2][3] engaging in "extortion, kidnapping, drug trafficking and murder".[5] They are associated with extrajudicial killings and terrorizing those who disagree with them.[3]

 

...Some personnel of Venezuela's intelligence agencies, including the Directorate General of Military Counterintelligence and the Bolivarian Intelligence Service, are also members of colectivos.[8] Colectivos have both legal and illegal funding sources.[7] They were initially funded by the Bolivarian government;[8] some receive funds to distribute government food packages[7] and have access to government "slush funds".[2] They are also funded by extortion, black-market food and the drug trade.[1][9]

 

Human Rights Watch described colectivos as "armed gangs who use violence with impunity" to harass political opponents of the Venezuelan government.[10][11] Amnesty International calls them "armed pro-government supporters who are tolerated or supported by the authorities".[12] They have attacked anti-government protesters[3] and Venezuelan opposition television staff, sent death threats to journalists, and once tear-gassed the Vatican envoy.[10] Through violence and intimidation, in 2019 they have increasingly become a means of quashing the opposition and maintaining political power;[9][13]

>>>

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela)

 

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by AgroLaki

[deez nuts.]

Organizator tog skupa je clan Proud Boysa. 

 

Skupise se antifasisti i podelili par samara i zauski. Bravo.

 

Ne znam kako nisi okacio da je FBI uhapsio jos jednog maloumnika, ovaj put meta mu je bio Bajden. Zubi vazniji od zivota.

[bohumilo]

Kad sam vec kod crnokosuljaskih "kolektivosa" i primitivne ideologije u cije ime kidisu na civilizaciju, dopade mi ruku (zapravo Kindla) ove nedelje jedna knjizica (slusao sam intervju sa autorkom kod Sema Herisa u podkastu pa sam odlucio da je pazarim i vidim sta ima tamo) koja je o fenomenu DeepFake-a ("deep" dolaze iz termina "duboke neuralne mreze", jednog od trenutno najvrucih algoritama masinskog ucenja) i njegovom uticaju na savremenu (a narocito buducu) drustvenu i politicku konjunkturu. Knjiga nije isporucila bas previse toga sto je obecala u naslovu i sto sam ja tamo trazio, ali je isporucila nesto zanimljivo na drugom polju, i releventno za ovu temu. Evo par odlomaka iz prve glave pod naslovom "Russia - the master":

 

 

>>>

 

...the IRA (Internet Research Agency, prim. bohumilo) was set up in 2013, first cutting its teeth during the invasion of Ukraine in 2014. In the United States, its operations would become known as Project Lakhta.

 

...The IRA was charged with infiltrating U.S. public discourse by posing as authentic Americans on social media, and then corrupting it by sowing as much discord, polarization, division and disinformation as possible. They would do this via social-media platforms: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. They had a long-term game plan. As Special Counsel Robert Mueller found in his subsequent investigation, the IRA started its activities in the United States in 2013—three years ahead of the election.5 In mid-2014, IRA agents even travelled to the United States in an “intelligence gathering mission […] to obtain information and photographs for use in their social media posts.”6

 

From their base in St. Petersburg, IRA agents next built fake pages, communities and personas, made to look as though they were authentically American. Then, this small group of operatives launched a multi-year plan to systematically corrupt American public discourse. This was about not only exploiting existing divisions as in Operation Infektion, but actively trying to create new ones. And the IRA did it by playing with identity politics. It involved a two-pronged strategy. First, the IRA would build up an identity by constructing fake online communities around those identities. Then they would imbue these communities with positive messages so that they would feel pride in their distinct identity. This would strengthen feelings of togetherness and group identity. Then, once these identities had been built up into “tribes,” they would inject the same communities with negative messages about other tribes to make them feel alienated from them.

 

The IRA intervened on all sides of the political divide...Although the conventional narrative says that only “dumb Trump voters” were fooled, in fact everyone was. The Mueller Report later described the strategy in more detail:

 

Quote

IRA Facebook groups active during the 2016 campaign covered a range of political issues and included purported conservative groups (with names such as “Being Patriotic,” “Stop All Immigrants,” “Secured Borders,” and “Tea Party News”), purported Black social justice groups (“Black Matters,” “Blacktivist,” and “Don’t Shoot Us”), LGBTQ groups (“LGBT United”), and religious groups (“United Muslims of America”).7

 

Let’s look at one IRA Facebook group, “Black Matters.” As the name suggests, the group was aimed at African Americans. It gives the impression of being affiliated with Black Lives Matter (BLM), the American campaign group founded in 2013 to protest against the violence and racism to which black Americans are subjected, especially the police killings of African Americans. A paid ad sponsoring the IRA’s “Black Matters” page goes straight for the jugular (Figure 2.1). It calls on people to “like” the page, saying “Join us because we care. Black Matters!” The ad features the faces of three young African Americans—Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Freddie Gray—along with a banner reading in capitals “NEVER FORGET.” ... By playing with such powerful tribal sentiments, the IRA was able to grow its influence operations. As in Operation Infektion, the IRA’s disproportionate focus was on the black community because race is such a politically and socially sensitive issue in America...Not all content from Project Lakhta was pro-Donald Trump. On the left, there was also pro-Bernie Sanders content. 

 

...the IRA also ran anti-Trump rallies after his election! One of them, organized by the IRA’s Black Matters U.S. page, managed to convene 5,000–10,000 protestors in Union Square in Manhattan. The angry rally then marched to Trump Tower to protest against his victory, four days after he won in 2016.13 “Join us in the streets! Stop Trump and his bigoted agenda!” said the Facebook event page for the rally. “Divided is the reason we just fell. We must unite despite our differences to stop HATE from ruling the land.”14 The tragic irony, of course, being that division was exactly what the Russians were hoping to create.

 

...

 

 

...

 

OPERATION DOUBLE DECEIT

 

Ahead of the 2020 presidential race, Russia was working to attack the United States in new ways that made it even harder to trace back its operations to them. There were some clues as to how the Kremlin’s tactics were evolving. On 12 March 2020, CNN, Twitter, Facebook and the network analytics firm Graphika20 exposed Operation Double Deceit. Like Operation Lakhta before it, Operation Double Deceit was a cross-platform social-media influence operation. Only nine months old when it was discovered, the Double Deceit network was still fairly small. It was composed of 69 Facebook pages with 13,500 followers, 85 Instagram accounts with 263,000 followers, and 71 Twitter accounts with 68,500 followers.

 

While Project Lakhta was run by IRA agents in St. Petersburg, in 2020 the work had been outsourced to Ghana. In Ghana, the IRA was operating behind the front of an African non-governmental organization (NGO). This fake NGO was called EBLA (Eliminating Barriers to the Liberation of Africa), and it had a website, office buildings and employees. According to a garbled statement on EBLA’s (now defunct) fake website, it was using “the cyber activism approach—a mechanism where advocacy is done through the usage of the New Media (NM), to create awareness of human right issues in Africa and beyond via the sharing of stories or news on daily human right abuses.”21

...

Double Deceit was again aiming for America’s most vulnerable of spots: race relations. EBLA employees were instructed to use the same strategy that had been used in Operation Lakhta. First, they would invite African-Americans to join online communities and try to instil pride in their “tribal” identity...

 

Quote

Facebook has revealed several left-wing US journalists have unwittingly been working for the Russian intelligence agency. The duped reporters were hired by agents masquerading as editors of a news website called Peace Data. 

The website “presented the US as war-mongering and law-breaking abroad while being wracked by racism, Covid-19, and cutthroat capitalism at home”, according to social media analysis company Graphika.

 

Facebook “learned through a tip from the FBI” that the site was run by “people formerly associated with the Russian Internet Research Agency, which created a number of influential Twitter and Facebook personas to inflame political tensions in the 2016 election”, says NBC News.

 

 

>>>

 

https://www.amazon.com/Deepfakes-Coming-Infocalypse-Nina-Schick/dp/1538754304

Edited October 23, 2020 by bohumilo

[deez nuts.]

[ters]

On 10/23/2020 at 12:20 AM, Cyrus Smith said:

Ne  priča se samo o vrhovnom sudu nego i o promeni izbornog sistema za predsednika sa elektorskog na jedan čovek jedan glas i obesmišljavanju ili ukidanju senata. Čak navodno i o stvaranju novih država, mada sam to čuo iz izvora koji je definitvno konzervativno nastrojen.

 

 

Zasto je jedan covek jedan glas problem ? 

 

Ako je jedna od partija u zakonskoj poziciji da formira sud kakav njoj odgovara u cemu je problem? u cemu je razlika u dodavanju jednog sudije kojeg druga strana odbija ili u dodavanju 4 sudija koje druga strana odbija ?

 

Dodatne drzave? Malo vjerovatno, mada mi bilo veoma zabavno zbog Trumpista  vidjeti senatore iz Free Republic i Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone kako vode neku senatsku komisiju protiv Lindesy Grahama i Mitch McConnela....

 

A ovome ne bi pricali da je bilo samo malo ljudske pristojnosti u ophodjenju i u zivotu i u politici - nesto sto je Tramp unistio i obesmislio tokom 4 godina.... Senat je vec sada obesmisljen, kada svaki republikanski senator mora dici ruku na  mig mango Musolinija... 

 

Ne bojte se, Trump ostaje na sceni za sljedeci mandat - i za to ima mnogo opcija  - glasove, sudove i jurisnike.... Kako god, bice "jer ste vi to trazili".... Kao sto ce biti i posljedice toga kada demokrate nekada opet preuzmu vlast. Ako mislite da je Bernie ili AOC lijevo, dajte Trampu priliku jos cetiri godine, pa cete vidjeti koliko su oni umjereni....

 

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by ters

[Angelia]

23 minutes ago, ters said:

Zasto je jedan covek jedan glas problem ? 

 

Zato sto je ovo federacija - pa ne bi bilo ok da odluke o celoj zemlji donosi 3-4 drzave.

Sve ostalo sto si napisao pokazuje koliko ne razumes USA, a ovo prvo pitanje ti je pokazatelj.

[ters]

2 minutes ago, Angelia said:

Zato sto je ovo federacija - pa ne bi bilo ok da odluke o celoj zemlji donosi 3-4 drzave.

Sve ostalo sto si napisao pokazuje koliko ne razumes USA, a ovo prvo pitanje ti je pokazatelj.

USA je u zadnje 4 godine klovnovska monarhija - toliko razumijem....

Edited October 25, 2020 by ters

[Angelia]

1 hour ago, ters said:

USA je u zadnje 4 godine klovnovska monarhija - toliko razumijem....

Mmmmm da, veoma smislen odgovor. Kao sto je i pitanje u cemu je problem sa jedan covek jedan glas.

Ako ti nije jasno u cemu je tu problem, i zasto postoji electoral college - iako mozda ne savrsen sistem, onda ti nista o USA nije jasno.

Definitivno je jasno zasto ne razumes razlog zasto Senat nije uopste obesmisljen, kao sto nije bio obesmisljen kad ga je drzala demokratska stranka.

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

2 hours ago, Angelia said:

Zato sto je ovo federacija - pa ne bi bilo ok da odluke o celoj zemlji donosi 3-4 drzave.

Sve ostalo sto si napisao pokazuje koliko ne razumes USA, a ovo prvo pitanje ti je pokazatelj.

 

Pa odluke o celoj zemlji i donose 3-4 drzave. 

[Angelia]

25 minutes ago, Baby said:

 

Pa odluke o celoj zemlji i donose 3-4 drzave. 

Ako mozes da pojasnis....ili si zaboravila Kongres i Senat

 

btw: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf

 

Ostalo o podeli vlasti u US se uci u skoli, i kako i zasto je izborni sistem takav kakav jeste.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Angelia

[ters]

35 minutes ago, Angelia said:

Mmmmm da, veoma smislen odgovor. Kao sto je i pitanje u cemu je problem sa jedan covek jedan glas.

Ako ti nije jasno u cemu je tu problem, i zasto postoji electoral college - iako mozda ne savrsen sistem, onda ti nista o USA nije jasno.

Definitivno je jasno zasto ne razumes razlog zasto Senat nije uopste obesmisljen, kao sto nije bio obesmisljen kad ga je drzala demokratska stranka.

Pa koliko glasova bi trebao imati jedan covjek ? Vise ili manje od jednog glasa?

 

Mozda mnogo stvari o USA postaje sve jasnije - a to je da je i taj sistem koji je izgledao nesalomiv 200 godina, podlozan korupciji i mesetarenju jednog covjeka koji vlada izdavanjem fatvi ili dekreta,kako god hoces da ih zoves. Postalo mi je jasno i da su institucije tog sistema koje bi ga trebale stititi jedna smijurija, jer "il duce" smjenjuje svakoga ko pokusa do sprovede bilo sta u skladu sa svojim ovlastenjima i postavlja prijatelja ili clana familije - kao da je u pitanju Balkan... 

 

 

 

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

41 minutes ago, Angelia said:

Ako mozes da pojasnis....ili si zaboravila Kongres i Senat

 

btw: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf

 

Ostalo o podeli vlasti u US se uci u skoli, i kako i zasto je izborni sistem takav kakav jeste.

 

Odluke ko ce doci na vlast se na kraju donesu u swing state. Evo poslednji naslovi, Georgia ce odluciti ko ce preovladati u senatu. 

Predsednika na vlast ne dovodi Kalifornija, NY ili Wayoming, nego opet neki swing state. 

 

Na kraju se svede da ustvari odluke o drzavi i vlasti se ipak donose samo u par drzava. 

[Angelia]

2 hours ago, ters said:

Pa koliko glasova bi trebao imati jedan covjek ? Vise ili manje od jednog glasa?

 

Mozda mnogo stvari o USA postaje sve jasnije - a to je da je i taj sistem koji je izgledao nesalomiv 200 godina, podlozan korupciji i mesetarenju jednog covjeka koji vlada izdavanjem fatvi ili dekreta,kako god hoces da ih zoves. Postalo mi je jasno i da su institucije tog sistema koje bi ga trebale stititi jedna smijurija, jer "il duce" smjenjuje svakoga ko pokusa do sprovede bilo sta u skladu sa svojim ovlastenjima i postavlja prijatelja ili clana familije - kao da je u pitanju Balkan... 

 

 

 

Izvini, ali pricas gluposti.

Electoral college sistem je postavljen tako da svakoj drzavi da dovoljno vaznosti, nije savrsen, ja licno mislim da je Tramp u pravu kad pokusava da izuzme ilegalce, ali ce to tesko postici.

 

trump nijednom nije u stvari prekoracio svoje ingerenecije, jeste pricao o tome, ali ih nikad nije prekoracio. Tako da je ovo "il duce" totalna budalastina.

1 hour ago, Baby said:

 

Odluke ko ce doci na vlast se na kraju donesu u swing state. Evo poslednji naslovi, Georgia ce odluciti ko ce preovladati u senatu. 

Predsednika na vlast ne dovodi Kalifornija, NY ili Wayoming, nego opet neki swing state. 

 

Na kraju se svede da ustvari odluke o drzavi i vlasti se ipak donose samo u par drzava. 

To je posledica toga da u nekim drzavama vec postoji tvrda odluka. Ali svaka drzava moze da predje iz blue u red, to se desilo mojoj PA 2016. U svakom slucaju - te drzave imaju pravo odluke, blue states sutra mogu da glasaju red ili obrnuto. Jedino sto je problematicno je da demokrate pokusavaju da to manipulisu kroz ilegalce, a republikanci pokusavaju da to obore.

 

Moj stav je da ilegalci ne bi trebali da imaju uticaj na to, i da electoral college glasovi ne treba da se kroje po tome. Ali to sam ja, ne odlucujem o tome.

[𝓑𝓪𝓫𝔂]

1 hour ago, Angelia said:

 

To je posledica toga da u nekim drzavama vec postoji tvrda odluka. Ali svaka drzava moze da predje iz blue u red, to se desilo mojoj PA 2016. U svakom slucaju - te drzave imaju pravo odluke, blue states sutra mogu da glasaju red ili obrnuto. Jedino sto je problematicno je da demokrate pokusavaju da to manipulisu kroz ilegalce, a republikanci pokusavaju da to obore.

 

Moj stav je da ilegalci ne bi trebali da imaju uticaj na to, i da electoral college glasovi ne treba da se kroje po tome. Ali to sam ja, ne odlucujem o tome.

 

Ne znam o cemu pricas. Ilegalci nemaju nikakav uticaj na glasanje, jer nemaju pravo glasa, osim u glavama trampista...