ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

Quote from: mac on 14-04-2015, 19:15:23
Ja sam Rubia spazio (http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php?topic=9305.msg441134#msg441134) već tamo 2012. godine. Linkovi na toj temi ne rade, ali njegova gostovanja na Daily Showu su skupljena na ovom linku, koji nadam se neće zastareti za 2-3 godine: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/marco-rubio (http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/marco-rubio) . Obratiti pažnju da su sva tri njegova gostovanja proizvela "produžen intervju", to jest bili su toliko zanimljivi da ga je Džon svaki put ispratio do kraja narativa, i traju po 20-30 minuta, umesto standardnih 5-10.

Quote from: Mileva on 14-04-2015, 20:02:06
Hvala Mac , ali video klipovi sa intervjuima mi se ne otvaraju. Pre 5+ Godina sam Jim Stewarta gotovo religiozno gledala. Sto njega sto The Colbert Report. Onda su postali sve popularniji, a meni nekako sve manje interesantni pa tako nisam ni videla ove intervjue. Potrazicu ih na youtubu.

Quote
"If you play 'Minecraft,' you're basically writing code when you're converting a hammer into a pickax," Rubio said. "Kids might not realize they're coding, but that's going to be almost a basic proficiency just because of the way they grew up."

QuoteJohn McAfee is one of the most influential commentators on cybersecurity anywhere in the world. His new venture — Future Tense Central — focuses on security and personal privacy-related products. McAfee provides regular insight on global hacking scandals and internet surveillance, and has become a hugely controversial figure following his time in Belize, where he claims to have exposed corruption at the highest level before fleeing the country amid accusations of murder (the Belize government is currently not pursuing any accusations against him).
This is not politics as usual. It is not in my nature, and it is not in our best interests.
The last few days have been amazing. I am humbled by the outpouring of support and encouragement that I have received. I did 27 interviews yesterday and today looks to be about the same. I have found that the issues we are bringing up are resonating. America cares about these things. Officially, my complete presidential platform is forthcoming, but I wanted to share on Digital Trends a number of reasons why I am running for president and founding a party.
Our government is in a dysfunctional state. It is also illiterate when it comes to technology.
Technology is not a tool that should be used for a government to invade our privacy. Technology should not be the scapegoat when we fail to protect our digital assets and tools of commerce. These are matters of priorities.
We live in a world that is defined by technology, and in these times, we need leadership that truly understands this responsibility and the opportunity that lies before us.
Our country is not prepared for a cyberwar that has already begun. We haven't seen anything yet. It is not ready to protect the precious assets of technology that we depend on as a people. We fail at that at an alarming rate. It is not ready to protect our infrastructure (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/09/cyber-attacks-doe-energy/71929786/), which sits on a precipice of threats. I can change that. I will change that, and it has to happen.
Related: John McAfee: How no one got laid on Ashley Madison (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/john-mcafee-how-no-one-got-laid-on-ashley-madison/)
Our government was designed to be for the people, by the people. Somehow, we have strayed from these original designs. Today's government is about powerful people and powerful conglomerates of corporations and lobby groups. Americans have been brought to their knees by this Orwellian machine. If you think you're not a subject or it doesn't affect you, look at our debt. Our future has been pre-spent and sold. We should all be outraged, and many are.
Years ago, in an environment where the computer industry was faced with a coming reality of threats, I started a computer security company and an industry was born. How innocent we were.
Related: John McAfee explains how to uninstall McAfee Antivirus (http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/john-mcafee-explains-how-to-uninstall-mcafee-antivirus-with-strippers/)
An entire sea of threats is lurking today, and it endangers all of us. Our failures to deal with this are based on policy, on economics, on a lack of efficiency, and a lack of priorities. This is where the Cyber Party comes in.
The Cyber Party is the spark we need to awaken the people from their deep slumber. Demand more from your government. Demand honesty. Demand freedom.
The goal is to bring these issues to light not only today, but long after this generation of people are gone. You are a person. You are human. You have rights. The world has changed and as time goes on, the effects of technology in our lives will only become more pronounced. You have a chance to dictate whether technology is used against you or whether it is used for the good of all.
If you care about security, if you care about privacy, if you care about an efficient government that is not beholden to massive buyouts, then we have something in common.
Finally, I would like to add that not only will we get action on these matters, I can assure you that we will win.
Visit us at www.mcafee16.com (http://www.mcafee16.com/) and visit our party at www.cyberparty.org (http://www.cyberparty.org/).

Quote
Donald Trump believes the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi were still in power.
"One hundred percent," Trump said when asked by Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union" (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/politics/donald-trump-moammar-gadhafi-saddam-hussein/) if the Middle East was safer under the ruthless dictators' rule than it is now.
"People are getting their heads chopped off," the real estate mogul continued. "They're being drowned. Right now it's far worse than ever under Saddam Hussein or Gadhafi."
Hussein, the former Iraqi president, was captured during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and later convicted for the 1982 killings of 148 Iraqi Shiites. He was executed in 2006.
"Iraq used to be no terrorists," Trump said. "Now it's the Harvard of terrorism. If you look at Iraq from years ago ... I'm not saying [Hussein] was a nice guy — he was a horrible guy. But it was a lot better than it is right now. Right now Iraq is a training ground for terrorists."


Gadhafi was ousted during a 2011 uprising and was later captured and killed by rebels.
"Right now Libya, nobody even knows Libya," the former "Celebrity Apprentice" star said. "Frankly, there is no Iraq and there is no Libya. It's all broken up. They have no control. Nobody knows what's going on."
Trump said the situation in the Middle East deteriorated during the Obama administration.
"I mean, look what happened," he said. "Libya is a catastrophe. Libya is a disaster. Iraq is a disaster. Syria is a disaster. The whole Middle East. It all blew up around Hillary Clinton and around Barack Obama. It all blew up."
So what would he do differently?
"The Trump doctrine is simple," he said. "It's strength. It's strength. Nobody is going to mess with us. Our military will be made stronger."


Appearing on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" Sunday, Trump boasted about a foreign policy prediction he made before 9/11.
"In my book, written in 2000, I was the one that predicted Osama bin Laden was trouble and you better do something about him," Trump said. "Well, guess what? 19 months later, he came down and knocked out the World Trade Center, killed thousands of Americans. I put it in a book. In fact, a couple of your competitors were saying, 'Whoa ... Trump actually mentioned Osama bin Laden and that we better do something about him or we're going to have problems.'"
The Republican frontrunner also discussed a pair of recent polls that show him trailing Ben Carson in Iowa.
"I was in Iowa three days ago," Trump said. "We had such an unbelievable turnout that I find it really difficult to believe that I'm in second place."
Not that he plans on changing his approach.
"I'm being divisive right now because I want to win," Trump said. "I know how to win; that's what I have to do. Ultimately if I do win, I'm going to be a great unifier, George. I will be a great unifier for the country. The country right now is terribly divided by a president that doesn't know how to lead, and he's a very divisive person. I will be a great unifier. You will be surprised to see that, but you will see that."

Quote

During a Friday-morning interview with Donald Trump, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was baffled by the Republican front-runner's embrace of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"Sure, when people call you 'brilliant' it's always good. Especially when the person heads up Russia," Trump told cohost Mika Brzezinski when asked about Putin praising him as "very talented" the day before (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-2015-12).

Scarborough pointed to Putin's status as a notorious strongman.

"Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked.

"He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have in this country."

"But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said.

The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.

"I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that's fine."

Scarborough was left visibly stunned.

"I'm confused," the MSNBC host said. "So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?"

"Oh sure, absolutely," Trump said.

Several of Trump's Republican presidential rivals criticized the billionaire businessman on Thursday for saying it was a "great honor" to receive Putin's praise.

Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, questioned (https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/677831652035424258) Trump's foreign-policy knowledge. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina suggested (https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/677626019847741440?lang=en) Trump visit Ukraine, where the Russian state has backed separatist rebels. And Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said he was (http://www.hughhewitt.com/chris-christie-reacts-debate-way-forward-campaign/) "really glad not to win the Putin primary."

But Friday during his "Morning Joe" interview, Trump said he always "felt fine" about Putin and touted the Russian president's poll numbers. Putin's position in his country is bolstered by the Russian government's control over much of the Russian news media.

"I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader ... He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."

Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Obama's.

"I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low 40s. And he's up in the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think they're done by American companies, actually."

After years of the right wing trying one scheme after another to take away Obamacare, it jars the senses to watch Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton accuse her primary rival, Bernie Sanders, of wanting to take away Obamacare. Sanders, she now insists, would do so from the left by instituting a program — single-payer healthcare — that would be

Quote from: mac on 16-01-2016, 11:46:05
Druga polovina teksta u originalu nije precrtana..

Quote

In July 1985, Bernie Sanders traveled to Nicaragua, where he attended an event that one wire report dubbed an "anti-U.S. rally."
The leftist Sandinista government was celebrating the sixth anniversary of the revolution that saw it take power from an American-backed dictator, Anastasio Somoza. Sanders was in a crowd estimated at a half million people, many of whom were clad in the Sandinistas' trademark red-and-black colors and chanting "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die."
Onstage, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega accused the U.S. government of "state terrorism" for supporting the rebels who were seeking to overthrow him. The Sandinistas and the CIA-backed Contras would fight into the next decade, with allegations of human rights abuses on both sides (https://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Nicaragu.htm). At the 1985 rally Sanders attended, Ortega vowed the Sandinistas would "defend the revolution with guns in hand."
Sanders was being hosted by the Sandinistas as part of a delegation of American "solidarity groups." He told reporters their decision to show "support" for the Nicaraguan government was "patriotic."
"We want to show support for a small country trying to be independent, and we want to tell the truth to the American people when we return," Sanders said.
Sanders was in the midst of a revolution of his own. Four years earlier, in 1981, he won a shocking victory by only 10 votes to become mayor of Vermont's largest city, Burlington. Sanders was elected on a socialist platform and led a mayoral administration that he boasted was "more radical" than any other in the country.
And he had a vision. Sanders believed his work in Burlington could spread socialism throughout America. In April 1985, the Los Angeles Times published a lengthy interview with Sanders in which he outlined his plan to spark "radical change."
"I think from one end of this country to the other, people are ripe for political revolution. Fifty percent of the people do not bother voting in the presidential and statewide elections," Sanders said. "The vast majority of those not voting are low-income people who have given up on America. The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation."
Sanders went on to suggest his mayoral administration had demonstrated "the people's contempt for conventional old-fashioned Democratic and Republican politics.
"The radical change in America that must come has to begin on a local level, and it is happening now in Burlington. Then it will spread to state and national levels," Sanders said, adding, "Of all the 50 states, I believe Vermont more than any other has a good chance of electing America's first socialist governor. Now that I have proven that I am a good mayor, perhaps the time will be ripe ... for me to run for the highest office in the state."
Sanders ran for Congress rather than governor after leaving Burlington's City Hall in 1989. But today, his dream of bringing his values to higher office and a national audience is closer to fruition than at any time his life.
A two-term incumbent U.S. senator, Sanders is within striking distance of frontrunner Hillary Clinton in this year's Democratic presidential primary, with recent polls in Iowa showing the two neck and neck and a Sanders lead in New Hampshire.
As Sanders journeyed from the fringes of Vermont's political scene to the national stage, many aspects of his agenda and even rhetoric have remained remarkably consistent. However, an extensive examination of his statements and views at the beginning of his political career shows Sanders has moderated some of his positions over the years.
Among other things, during the 1970s and '80s, Sanders regularly called for public takeovers of various businesses, including utilities and the oil industry. Sanders advocated seizing money from corporations and from one of America's richest families. And, as a mayor, Sanders made forays into foreign policy that included meetings with representatives of hostile nations, rebel groups and Canadian separatists. 
Yahoo News first reached out to Sanders' presidential campaign to discuss this article last week. In addition to inquiring about Sanders' past support for nationalizing various industries, Yahoo News asked about Sanders' presence at the Sandinista rally. This included a request for the campaign to confirm whether a report in the alternative weekly Seven Days (http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-siempre-what-bernie-learned-in-nicaragua/Content?oid=2948191) that claimed the trip to Nicaragua was paid for by the Sandinista government was correct. The campaign declined to comment. Yahoo also contacted the campaign of Sanders' Democratic primary rival, Hillary Clinton, which has become increasingly critical of the Vermont senator as the race tightens. It declined to comment as well.  Sanders is now vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, but his record reflects just how far outside of the two-party system he started out. In fact, throughout his early career, Sanders expressed distaste for both Democratic and Republican politicians. His first campaigns were long shot bids as a member of the Liberty Union Party, a radical, anti-war group that he helped found.
Under the Liberty Union banner, Sanders ran for one of Vermont's U.S. Senate seats in 1972. He ran for the state's other Senate seat in 1974. Sanders, who served as Liberty Union's chairman, was also the party's candidate in Vermont's governor's races in 1972 and 1976. In all four campaigns, Sanders attracted support in the single digits.
In interviews at the time, Sanders was fairly open about the fact he did not expect to win any of these races. Rather, he suggested the Liberty Union Party could serve as a force to mainstream socialist ideas ahead of an eventual national shift.
During his Senate campaign in 1974, the local Bennington Banner quoted Sanders telling attendees at a Liberty Union event about what he hoped to accomplish with his long shot candidacy (https://www.newspapers.com/image/63049155/?t).
"You have a reason to knock on doors," Sanders said. "It's a good way to organize and educate people. ... Talk the issues. People can't see alternatives. Our job is to open their eyes and give them a vision."
At a press conference for his second gubernatorial bid in 1976, Sanders predicted it would have a "national impact" (https://www.newspapers.com/image/63056876/?terms=) if the Liberty Union candidates had a decent showing at the polls because it would show voters there were alternatives to the traditional party system.
"He said voters sense that Democratic politicians have similar views about such issues as rising utility rates, an unfair tax system, low wages, and high unemployment," UPI reported.
Some of his pitch to voters was quite similar to his current platform. As a Liberty Unionite, Sanders railed against income inequality and — decades before the Occupy movement — what he described as a system that privileged "the wealthy 2 or 3 percent." As he does now, Sanders called for progressive reforms to taxes and campaign finance.
Other parts of Sanders' Liberty Union platform went well beyond anything he is currently advocating. In 1973, UPI reported that Sanders urged Vermont's congressional delegation to "give serious thought to the nationalization of the oil industry."
The following year, the Bennington Banner reported Sanders' Senate campaign was focused on "two prime issues." The first was rate increases for electric and telephone service, which the paper said Sanders sought to confront with "public takeover of all privately owned electric utilities in the state." Sanders' plan for public ownership of utility companies involved the businesses being seized from their owners.
It was a view he would carry forward into his 1976 gubernatorial bid: That year Sanders said the Liberty Union platform called for a state takeover of utilities "without compensation to the banks and wealthy individuals who own them." 
These weren't the only assets Sanders suggested should be seized from the wealthy.
Sanders' second main theme in his 1974 Senate race was what the Bennington Banner called (https://www.newspapers.com/image/63049284/) his "own pet issue," the "incredible economic power of the Rockefeller family." As a presidential candidate and member of Congress, Sanders has assailed the influence billionaires and megadonors (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-koch-brothers_55d9ca6ee4b0a40aa3ab3642) hold over American politics and media. However, his plan for the Rockefellers went much further, with Sanders implying he would push to have the family's fortune used to fund government programs. In a 1974 press release, Sanders said (https://www.newspapers.com/clip/2853720/fri_june_28_1974_bennington_banner/) "the incredible wealth and power of this family must be broken up." The Rockefellers' billions should be "used to create a decent standard of living for all people" by being redirected toward government social programs for the elderly or lower taxes.
Sanders was in the middle of running on an anti-Rockefeller platform in August 1974 when reports began to emerge that President Ford planned to nominate Nelson Rockefeller to be his vice president after the impeachment and resignation of President Nixon. Sanders was apoplectic and sent a letter to Ford (https://www.newspapers.com/image/63044715/?terms=%22bernard%2Bsanders%22%2BROCKEFELLER%2BDICTATORSHIP) urging him to pick someone else because "the Rockefellers are already the richest and most powerful family in the world." Sanders warned that the appointment "could be the beginning of a virtual Rockefeller family dictatorship over the nation." Rockefeller was officially nominated about a week later and went on to become vice president.
In late 1977, Sanders left the Liberty Union Party. His departure came after the group endangered its major party status by failing to hold local caucuses required by state law. Sanders said the situation showed the party failed to live up to a promise (https://www.newspapers.com/image/63954503/?terms=) to supporters that it would remain active beyond campaigns and  "would not disappear from the scene the day after the election."
But Sanders didn't drop out of Vermont politics — or stop advocating for private assets to become public property. In 1979, he penned an opinion column for the Vermont Vanguard Press about another industry he felt was ripe for a public takeover — television.
The editorial, titled "Social Control and the Tube," called for people to "address the control of television as a political issue, and organize to win." Sanders argued the owners of commercial television stations sought to "intentionally brainwash people into submission and helplessness" through "constant advertising interruptions" and "the well-tested Hitlerian principle that people should be treated as morons and bombarded over and over again with the same simple phrases and ideas." He said the television industry was designed to "create a nation of morons who will faithfully go out and buy this or that product, vote for this or that candidate, and faithfully work for their employers for as low a wage as possible." Sanders suggested a public takeover of the airwaves could remedy the problem.
"The potential of television democratically owned and controlled by the people is literally beyond comprehension because it is such a relatively new medium and we have no experience with it under democratic control. At the least, with the present state of technology, we could have a choice of dozens of channels of commercial-free TV," he wrote, adding, "At the moment serious writers are, by and large, not allowed to write for commercial television for fear they might produce something that is true and hence, upsetting to the owners of the media. Under democratic control, people with all kinds of views could make their presentations, and serious artists would be encouraged to produce work for the tube."
Sanders had a chance to pursue public control of television broadcasting, as well as his fight against utility companies, when he became mayor of Burlington in March of 1981.
Though he identified as a socialist, Sanders ran as an independent when he won his shocking upset. According to the Associated Press, Sanders made it to City Hall with the help of "a coalition of college professors, poor people, labor unions, neighborhood groups and students."
"The decisions in this city are not going to be made in the offices of banks and big businesses any more," Sanders warned after his victory.
Still, Sanders promised he would be "extending the olive branch" to Burlington's business community and political establishment.
"I'm not looking for war," Sanders said.
Sanders might not have been spoiling for a fight, but he sure got one. He began his mayoralty with only two supporters on the city's 13-member board of aldermen. The rest were Democrats and Republicans who vehemently opposed Sanders. In his first months in office, the aldermen blocked Sanders' appointments. He also accused city officials of firing his secretary and even opening his mail. One day Sanders' rust-covered car was ticketed when he parked in his special mayoral spot.
"I guess now what I expect is that the Democrats on the board are going to attempt to make every day of my life as difficult as possible," Sanders said at a June 1981 press conference about the rejection of his appointees. "That's fine. We will reciprocate in kind and we will work vigorously to carry out in one way or the other the mandate we were elected to carry out."Burlington's new mayor was a lot for some of his constituents and colleagues to get used to. Sanders is a Brooklyn native with a decidedly confrontational and prickly demeanor. The New York Times reported on an incident (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/19/nyregion/notes-on-people-some-disunity-along-the-united-way.html) that took place a little over six months after he took office when Sanders essentially insulted a room full of charity workers. Sanders had been invited to speak at the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fundraising drive. When he stood up to speak at the banquet, Sanders let the attendees know he didn't support their work.
"I don't believe in charities," Sanders said before explaining that he felt government should be responsible for social programs.
Gary De Carolis was one of Sanders' Progressive Coalition allies on the board. De Carolis spent six years in Burlington city government during the Sanders administration and grew to be "close friends" with him, he told Yahoo News. According to De Carolis, Sanders' initial battles with the aldermen were "brutal," "very nasty" and "unbelievably loud."
"Most nights you went in there and you knew it was going to be hell," De Carolis explained. "You had to stand up for what you believed in ... it was not pretty."
De Carolis attributed the anger at Sanders to the city's Democratic establishment losing power to an independent socialist.
"Most times he had, in a sense, the law and the statutes of the city behind him," said De Carolis. "A lot of what was coming at him was total anger for the loss of power from the Democratic Party."
Sanders' appearance may have stood out almost as much as his policies. Multiple articles about the early days of his mayoral administration allude to his casual and even sloppy personal style. Sanders reportedly purchased a suit an hour before his inauguration and lived in an apartment that De Carolis described as "a mess." In 1982, Knight-Ridder news service spoke to James Burns, one of Sanders' rivals on the board of aldermen. Burns said he didn't "get along too well" with the mayor and went on to mock Sanders.
"He's quite crude," Burns said before imitating the way he claimed Sanders would slouch at meetings. "It doesn't put forth an executive image, when you see someone slinked in a chair."
Still, in spite of the rocky start, Sanders eventually won over the board — literally. By 1985, six of the aldermen were members of Sanders' Progressive Coalition. During his four terms in office, Burlington's socialist mayor presided over a prosperous economic climate and his treasurer discovered a $1.9 million surplus that had gone unnoticed in the budget. Though Sanders installed a new tax on money spent at hotels, restaurants and bars, he pushed for lower property taxes. Sanders also audited the city's pension fund and initiated competitive bidding for many government contracts.
'I am a socialist," Sanders told the New York Times in 1987 (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/18/us/burlington-vt-divided-by-mayor-s-tax-mission.html). "But what we're doing here is not socialist. It's just good government."
Sanders also began dabbling in mainstream politics. He endorsed his first Democratic presidential candidate, Walter Mondale, in 1984. Sanders even wore a suit sometimes. De Carolis said Sanders would dress up for his visits to the State House in Montpelier. The Associated Press pointed out Sanders wore a suit for a debate when he was running for re-election in 1983 though the reporter said aides had to help Sanders fix his tie before he went out onstage.
"I used to dress up a little bit better than Bernie," De Carolis recounted. "He used to say to me, 'Gary, you got to teach me about these ties and all this nice coordinated clothing.'"
Of course, Sanders still pursued a staunchly progressive agenda while he was mayor. He continued battling with Vermont's utility companies. He charged them new fees for excavating on city streets and pushed for them to raise commercial rates in order to lower costs for residential clients. And while he didn't try to seize the local television industry, Sanders sought to establish a city-owned and -operated cable system to compete with the private Green Mountain Cable Television network.
Sanders was an early crusader against gentrification. During his eight years in office, Sanders fought for rent control and tenants' rights. He also battled to secure public space on the Lake Champlain waterfront when developers wanted to use the land for high-end housing. Almost immediately after being elected in 1981, Sanders declared, "luxury condominiums will not be the priority of this administration."
"We have a city that is trying to help a developer build $200,000 luxury waterfront condominiums with pools, and health clubs, and boutiques, and all sorts of upper-middle-class junk five blocks from an area where people are literally not eating in order to pay their rent and fuel bills," Sanders said. 
The waterfront park Sanders pushed for was eventually built (http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/flashback-did-bernie-sanders-really-save-the-burlingt). In fact, it's where Sanders stood when he held a rally to launch his presidential campaign last year.  Along with fighting development on the lakefront, Sanders also established anti-pollution programs and a community land trust. Other progressive achievements during the Sanders administration included a law requiring women to get 10 percent of city-funded trade jobs, a 1985 resolution supporting gay rights, and programs that allowed city employees to have input on personnel policies including sick leave.
Still, Sanders' most radical actions as mayor had little to do with Burlington. While in office, Sanders pursued a foreign policy agenda independent of and at times at odds with the aims of Washington. This included engagement with controversial international political groups and countries that had hostile relationships with the United States.
Sanders found multiple ways to involve himself in the war between the Sandinistas and the Contras in Nicaragua. In addition to traveling to the country and attending Ortega's rally, Sanders's Progressive Coalition on the board of aldermen passed a 1985 resolution pledging Burlington would defy President Ronald Reagan's embargo of Nicaragua. Sanders also established a sister city relationship with a Nicaraguan town, Puerto Cabezas.
His actions drew such attention that the "Doonesbury" comic strip infamously nicknamed Sanders' city the "People's Republic of Burlington" after he took office. Along with visiting Nicaragua, UPI reported, Sanders traveled to Cuba and the Soviet Union during his years as mayor. And on Dec. 6, 1981, Sanders went to Canada for the policy convention of the Parti Québécois, the separatist party that led the Canadian province of Quebec. At that gathering, which reportedly was also attended by representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PQ voted to push for independence from Canada even if it required breaking economic ties.
Sanders' diplomatic efforts also included welcoming dignitaries to City Hall in Burlington. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times noted (http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-28/news/vw-21595_1_vermonters) "politicians from France, England, Mexico, Scandinavian countries, visitors from the Soviet Union and China, and representatives from the Irish Republican Army have stopped by Sanders' office during the past four years." Sanders also told the paper about his unusual idea for confronting Cold War tensions.
"A handful of people in this country are making decisions, whipping up Cold War hysteria, making us hate the Russians. We're spending billions on military. Why can't we take some of that money to pay for thousands of U.S. children to go to the Soviet Union?" Sanders asked, adding, "And, why can't the Soviets take money they're spending on arms and use it to send thousands of Russian children to America? We've got to start breaking down the walls of nationalism. We've got to get people to know one another."
De Carolis, Sanders' friend and ally in city government, said Sanders was able to delve into foreign policy because he focused on Burlington first and constituents were happy with basic services.
"If you're going to take on bigger national and international issues, you better take care of the home front first," De Carolis said. "He was very good about making sure the streets were plowed, the sidewalks were in good repair, all those things that concern people every day of their life. He was great about that, and that afforded him the opportunity to develop relationships with various countries around the world."
Sanders left the mayor's office in 1989 after deciding not to run for re-election. He was followed by Peter Clavelle, whom UPI described as his "hand-picked successor." Sanders, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1988, won a House race two years later, beginning his career in Washington. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006.
As a presidential candidate, Sanders has maintained the relentless focus on income inequality and tax reform that was a hallmark of his earlier career. Still, there's no question he also has moderated some of the views he espoused at the start of his political career.
Sanders was an independent in Congress and an opponent of the two-party system. Today, his very presence in a Democratic presidential primary signals a shift in his longstanding position and a softening of his views. He also has stopped calling for the nationalization of industries. In November of last year, as his campaign gained steam, Sanders gave a landmark speech (http://news.yahoo.com/the-top-5-takeaways-from-bernie-sanders-big-014821822.html) defining his "democratic socialist ideals." In the address, he explicitly said he does not "believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production."
Washington writer Harry Jaffe, author of the new book "Why Bernie Sanders Matters," (http://www.amazon.com/Bernie-Sanders-Matters-Harry-Jaffe/dp/1682450171) suggested that this turn away from advocating for the public takeover of industries has been the biggest change in Sanders' platform over the years.
"The basic socialist plank is ... public control of the means of production," Jaffe said. "He believed that because he said it and I quote him as saying that. ... He's totally changed that."
Indeed, leftists have criticized Sanders for no longer supporting nationalization of industries and openly speculated about whether his current brand of "democratic socialism" is socialism at all (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/11/20/9767096/bernie-sanders-socialism-jacobin).
"Once Bernie Sanders made it clear that he wasn't a socialist in the classic terms, he's pretty much stayed true to ... his basic positions ... that there's too much of a difference between the rich and the poor," Jaffe said. "He's been pretty straightforward on that. I think he's been pretty straightforward on the universal health care."
Jaffe described the situation as a "deal with the devil" Sanders made as he sought higher office.
"Bernie Sanders is not stupid. He's a very canny, canny political operator. He just really is smart and he's expedient," said Jaffe. "He made a deal with the devil. It's a very, very slick and small deal in that, you know, he said, 'OK, I will come off of my hardcore socialism, but I'm going to stick very tightly to the rest of my basic belief system.' ... He certainly did that."
Sanders' foreign policy ideas are also far more mainstream than they were when he was mayor of Burlington. Jaffe cited Sanders' votes to approve increased defense spending — even though they came begrudgingly — as another area where his views have "moderated." Though Sanders has heavily focused on the fact he voted against the Iraq War, Sanders has voted to authorize military force in other instances. Jaffe said this is another shift for a politician who began his career extremely "skeptical" of war.
"He voted a couple of times for troop involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq," Jaffe said. "He's going to shove his first vote in front of Hillary Clinton forever because he did vote against the Iraq War, but after that, he did vote for troop engagement."
Though his campaign has promised he would "move away from a policy of unilateral military action, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy," Sanders is not opposed to military action. In Congress, he voted to authorize NATO bombings in the Kosovo War in 1999 and in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 attacks. Since the start of the Iraq War, Sanders has voted to approve funds used to finance that conflict, leading to criticism from the left (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-troubling-history-supporting-us-military-violence-abroad). As Sanders ran for Senate in 2006, the website of the Socialist Worker newspaper described those votes as "betrayal."
When asked if Sanders has moderated his views since the early days, his old friend De Carolis allowed that facing past political fights may have led Sanders to temper his positions somewhat.
"Knowing what he's been through the last 20 or 30 years, maybe to a degree but not much," De Carolis said.
"What you hear today is very much what you heard back then," he said.
However, Sanders' ally has noticed one major difference. These days, Sanders generally wears a suit and tie.
"If there's anything that's changed, it's that he dresses much nicer now," De Carolis said.

Quote

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) criticized NBC moderator Andrea Mitchell for a question about former President Bill Clinton's White House sex scandal.

During the Sunday-night Democratic debate, Sanders saying recently that the former president's indiscretions were "totally disgraceful and unacceptable (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-bill-clinton-unacceptable-217522)." And he was irritated that Mitchell even asked about it.

"That question annoys me," Sanders said.

Sanders complained that the media put too much pressure on him to attack the former secretary of state.

"I can't walk down the street — Secretary Clinton knows this — without being told how much I have to attack Secretary Clinton. Want me to get on the front page of the paper? I make some vicious attack. I have avoided doing that, trying to run an issue-oriented campaign."

"You didn't have to answer it that way, though," Mitchell said, referring to Sanders answer about Bill Clinton's indiscretions.

"Then if I don't answer it, that's another front-page story," Sanders responded.

He added: "His behavior was deplorable. Have I ever said one word about that issue? No I have not. I'm going to debate Secretary Clinton and Governor O'Malley on the issues facing the American people, not Bill Clinton's behavior."

Quote
              DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz beat billionaire Donald Trump in Iowa's Republican presidential nominating contest on Monday, upsetting the national front-runner in the race to be their party's White House nominee.
              Cruz, a conservative lawmaker from Texas, won with 28 percent of the vote compared to 24 percent for businessman Trump. Marco Rubio, a U.S. senator from Florida, came in third place with 23 percent, making him easily the leader among establishment Republican candidates.
On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in a virtual tie with rival Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist U.S. senator from Vermont. With 88 percent of the precincts reporting Clinton led with 49.9 percent to Sanders' 49.4 percent.
              Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who had trouble gaining any traction in the Democratic race, planned to suspend his campaign. He won 0.6 percent.
              Cruz's win and Rubio's strong showing could dent the momentum for Trump, whose candidacy has alarmed the Republican establishment and been marked by controversies such as his calls for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.
Rubio said, "They told me I needed to wait my turn, that I needed to wait in line. But tonight here in Iowa the people of this great state have sent a very clear message."
              The results could have ramifications in upcoming races.
"There is now blood in the water for Donald Trump," said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. "Ted Cruz proved he could successfully beat back Trump attacks because he had a great ground game and identified well with evangelical voters."
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said he was suspending his campaign for the Republican party nomination. Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in 2008.
               (Writing by Jeff Mason; Editing by Howard Goller)

QuoteEverything Trump has done during the campaign is designed to dupe the media into funding his marketing strategy                             

Donald Trump's presidential campaign feels whimsical, like a practical joke or publicity tour gone awry. But it turns out the Donald is running a long con. A new report (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/how-donald-trump-did-it-213581) in Politico suggests Trump has been plotting this stunt for years, and he knew exactly what he had to do to succeed.According to the report, Trump was approached two years ago by GOP operatives who wanted him to run for governor of New York. To their surprise, he declined but added that they would be useful when he ran for president. "I'm going to walk away with it and win outright," Trump told the group, "I'm going to get in and all the polls are going to go crazy. I'm going to suck all the oxygen out of the room. I know how to work the media in a way that that they will never take the lights off of me."
Trump knew all along that his celebrity and media savvy were sufficient to support his campaign. Although they didn't believe him, Trump told the Republicans in that room in 2013 that he would dominate the race without spending much on paid advertising. From the report:

"'You can't run for president on earned media,' one attendee recalled telling Trump. The billionaire looked up, and paused for a long moment. 'I think you're wrong,' Trump said. 'Are you going to do all those little events at the Pizza Ranches?" another person asked, referring to the Iowa fast food franchises that are a staple of presidential campaign stops. 'Maybe a little,' Trump replied. 'But it's really about the power of the mass audience.'"

Trump was right. The ability to control the narrative, to dominate the coverage, is all it takes. Trump's amorality coupled with his gift for self-promotion has turned the Republican presidential race on its head. He's made the race about him, and anytime he isn't the main story, he lurches back into the headlines with an outrageous comment about women or Muslims or Mexicans or disabled people – anything to win the news cycle.
The biggest takeaway from the report is that Trump is indeed a professional huckster. And whatever else he is, he's not stupid. He doesn't believe half the absurdities he utters on the campaign trail either. As the report makes clear, everything he's done and said was designed to dupe the media into funding his marketing strategy.
Trump's a TV man; he understands the landscape. He knows interesting is preferable to informed or reasonable or lucid. Which is why he eschews talking points or scripts and instead riffs on stage like a stand-up. Trump's free-wheeling approach means he could say literally anything at any moment, and that's the kind of thing people want to watch. The bit about Mexicans being criminals and rapists, for example, was entirely improvised during Trump's announcement speech, and while it was an egregious thing to say, the sheer craziness of the remarks won him a week's worth of headlines and catapulted his campaign.

"Trump didn't foresee the furor his Mexico comments would generate; it was a reaction that built slowly and broke into a fever pitch," Eli Stokols and Ben Schreckinger write. "But even if he didn't predict what exactly would kick off the media frenzy, he had planned all along to offer the media a candidacy it couldn't resist covering." This is what Trump has done from the beginning: say something offensive, watch the media pounce, and allow the saturated coverage to fuel his insurgent campaign.
Trump's strategy is nearly perfect. On the one hand, he's tapped into a vein of resentment in the country, and in a way no serious politician could. And on the other hand, he's free to say whatever he wants, no matter how controversial, because doing so breathes more oxygen into his campaign. Even more advantageous, he's entered the race at an ideal time. The public — for good reasons — no longer trusts Washington. Trump is a hack who can't fix anything, but people make bad decisions when they're anxious or angry, and Trump is offering them an alternative to the status quo. This is what demagogues do, and it usually works.
As a candidate, Trump appears uncontainable. His risk tolerance is unmatched, and that gives him a freedom no other candidate enjoys. He can offend anyone, promise anything, and circumnavigate the entire process without ever having to apologize. Not apologizing, as the Politico writers note, only bolsters "a candidate who appeals to voters fed up with political correctness and establishment niceties." It also forces the other candidates to play his game, to react to the tone he sets and the issues he raises.
Everything Trump does has to be seen in the broader context of his media-centric strategy. No one should ask if Trump believes what he says; it's impossible to know. If he does believe something he says, it's a happy coincidence, because his campaign is an experiment in modern marketing, not an expression of his political worldview.

Clinton's reaction when Anderson asked if she had to take so much $ from Goldman

Quote from: CorwinM on 09-02-2016, 12:57:43
Sa ogromnom pažnjom ovih dana pratim predizbornu kampanju u Americi. Dešava se po prvi put nešto bez presedana - jasno se definišu dva politička pola. S jedne strane imamo veoma jadne republikance, sa Donaldom Trampom koji i dalje vodi u istraživanjima javnog mnjenja. Donald je inače bio smiješan lik, ali je sada shvatio da može da se bavi politikom nudeću Amerikancima retoriku koja najviše podsjeća na, pa, Šešelja. Naravno, natečeni tajkun bi imao mnogo toga da uči o manipulaciji masama od Šekija, ali je jasno da njegova retorika privlačna neobrazovanim i ljutitim masama - što užasno podsjeća na neku situaciju na Balkanu. A u njegove stavove spada javno zagovaranje podizanje zidova i zabranu ulaska u SAD muslimanima, najava još gorih "taktika" mučenja prema ratnim zarobljenicima, otvorena mizoginija, histerična vriska da su izbori pokradeni nakon poraza u Ajovi i slično.


Ostali kandidati u republikanskoj stranci su takođe čemer i jad. Trenutno je najozbiljniji kandidat senator iz Teksasa Ted Kruz za kojeg je u više navrata dokazano da je lažov, jedan smutljivac čiji stavovi uopšte ne odudaraju od Trampovih (zapravo je još i gori, ako uzmemo u obzir stav prema LGBT), i koji svaki predizborni skup počinje molitvom. Ovo zadnje ga je dovelo da pobijedi u Ajovi, uprkos velikoj prednosti koju je Tramp imao.


Treći kandidat kod Republikanaca je Marko Rubio koji bi trebalo da bude "umjereni" Republikanac i čija podrška u poljednje vrijeme raste. Međutim, Marko Rubio jednostavno nema harizmu, nije tip "pravog vođe", a u posljednje vrijeme se ozbiljno dovode u pitanje njegovi nervi i intelektualne sposobnosti. Naime, ako se neko vidno unervozi i trese tokom debate, kako će se ponašati usred ozbiljne krize? Nakon posljednjeg nastupa donator su odjednom zatvorili novčanike i novac već predviđen za Rubija odlučili da zadrže do daljnjeg.

Ostali kandidati su potpuni autsajderi i nemaju ozbiljne šanse da se kvalifikuju za opšte izbore.


I s druge strane, kod Demokrata, postaje veoma interesantno. Hilari Klinton, uz podršku većine glavara Demokratske stranke, njenog muža koji aktivno sudjeluje u kampanji sa njom (čak je i nama dobro poznata i omiljena Medlin Olbrajt govorila na tribini sa njom prije par dana), prethodno iskustvo, uz milione koje su sasute u njenu kampanju i ogromno lično bogatstvo - ona i Bil su od 2007 inkasirali preko 160 miliona zarade, dugo je bila apsolutni favorit. Osim toga, ona se oslanja na podršku žena da po prvi put u istoriji dođe do toga da se u Bijelu kuću usele Predsjednica i "Prvi džentlmen". Ali ne lezi vraže, izgleda da opet nije dovoljno. Malo je bilo što je Obama praktično išamarao 2008 iako su je svi smatrali za favorita.


Izuzetno simpatični čičica od 74 godine, senator iz Vermonta Berni Sanders, Jevrej sa bruklinškim akcentom i socijalista - sebe zove demokratom socijalistom - koji se relativno nedavno pridružio Demokratama i kojeg ne podržava gotovo nijedan kongresmen ili senator - izazvao je pravi zemljotres. Berni je bio potpuni autsajder, prije manje od godinu dana istraživanja su mu davala nešto oko 10% glasova, dok je za Hilari Klinton predviđano preko 60%. Prošlog vikenda su održani prvi unutrapartijski izbori, u Ajovi. Klintonova je "pobijedila" sa 49.9% prema 49.6%. Sljedeći je Nju Hempšir u kojem Berni ima značajnu prednost - trenutno 54% prema 42%.
Ono što je nevjerovatno za Bernija Sandersa, i što se dešava po prvi put u američkoj istoriji jeste način na koji se finansira njegova kampanja, a to je "crowdfunding". Samo u januaru njegova kampanja je prikupila preko tri miliona dolara. Prosječan iznos uplate - 27$. Donacije od velikih korporacija niti prima niti mu se nude. Zato što ih je proglasio neprijateljima i američke ekonomije, i što je još važnije, američke demokratije. Jer Berni postavlja veoma neprijatno pitanje koje se toliko rijetko čulo u javnom diskursu u Americi - ako ogromne korporacije uspu milione u kampanju za senatora, kongresmena ili predsjednika - koliko je ta osoba zaista nezavisna? Da li u tim kompanijama rukovode moroni koji tolike pare loše investiraju?


Prva stavka njegovog programa - zauzdati Vol Strit, strogo regulisati sa federalnog nivoa trgovinu akcijama. Najveće banke rasparčati i regulisati. On se zalaže i za to da pošte! daju Amerikancima male zajmove, kako ih private banke ne bi muzzle sa nenormalnim kamatama. Druga stavka - oporezovati debelo "gornji 1%", odnosno klasu milijardera. (Skoro je jedan Trampov glasač upao na Bernijevu konferenciju i počeo da viče. Berni je sa govornice staloženo odgovorio - evo jedne osobe zabrinute za Donalda Trampa i njegove milijarde!) Dalje, skoro duplirati minimalnu zaradu. Treće, Obamacare nije dovoljan. Besplatna zdravstvena zaštita treba da postane ljudsko pravo u Americi i tačka. U gotovo svakom intervjuu Berni podsjeća da je SAD jedina razvijena zemlja na planeti gdje ovo još nije uvedeno. Pa postavlja pitanje - ako Velika Britanija i Francuska ovo daju svojim građanima - je li to znači da te zemlje nisu demokratske?


Paradoksalno, Bernija koji ima 74 godine najviše podržavaju mladi, u toj populaciji on ima podršku po nekim istraživanjima od preko 80%. Razlog je u dobroj mjeri sljedeća "radikalna" tačka programa - besplatno studiranje na državnim univerzitetima i pomoć mladim ljudima da se oslobode kredita koje su digli za studiranje. Uz to, Berni se zalaže i za značajno smanjenje vojnog budžeta, ukazujući na to da se u tom sektoru ogroman novac i rasipa, umjesto da se racionalno troši, što niko ne preispituje. Što se spoljne politike tiče, njegov stav je gotovo izolacionistički - tu se podudara sa Trampom.


Sve ovo je veoma privlačno sve većem broju ljudi. Klintonovu očigledno hvata nervoza jer su lični napadi na njega sve učestaliji. Čak je na posljednjoj debati djelovala i pomalo histerično. Berni je za to vrijeme bio džentlmen, uzdržavajući se od ličnih kvalifikacija i uporno vraćajući diskusiju na problem i njihova rješenja. Iako je i dalje malo vjerovatno da će na kraju pobijediti Klintonovu - izbori u Nju Hempširu bi mogli da to promijene.


A što se tiče istraživanja javnog mnjenja, pokazuje se da često griješe. U Ajovi je Tramp bio izraziti favorit, pa je na kraju završio na jedva drugom mjestu.


Šta god da se na kraju desi, posljedice po cijeli svijet će biti značajne.

Quote from: .!. on 10-02-2016, 03:16:59
postoje li linkovi ili torenti za februarske emisije

ABC World News Tonight with David Muir

na piratu i kikesu samo dva dana pokrivena u februaru, tako da se nadam da ima neki drugi sajt...

zvanični ABC sajt dozvoljava gledanje samo na teritoriji SAD, tako da to otpada... youtube nema kompletne emisije... ima neki pod sajt, samo glas bez slike

kao da je Spilbergov film a ne dnevnik...

Quote
MILWAUKEE — On foreign policy, Bernie Sanders does not go after Hillary Clinton with policy precision; he attacks her credibility with red-meat heaves attractive to the liberal base.
In Thursday night's Democratic debate, Sanders repeated one of his trademark attacks — and one that worked for Barack Obama in 2008 against Clinton — that he opposed the Iraq War and she did not. But he went further in drawing a binary and philosophical contrast by reminding viewers of Clinton's comments from last week's debate, that she was "very flattered" to get praise from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Kissinger, who served under Pres. Richard Nixon and Pres. Gerald Ford, is maligned especially among Democrats for his handling of the Vietnam War and for leading a foreign policy that his critics believed undermined democratic governments around the world, while supporting dictatorships that promoted human rights violations.
And while the reference might not have resonated with the under-30 demographic that Sanders dominated in Iowa and New Hampshire, it was a reductive, symbolically potent bit for baby boomers who may be undecided or unsure of Clinton's overall worldview. It echoed criticism (http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-has-a-henry-kissinger-problem-1757313187) that emerged on liberal-leaning websites (http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/) last week at the time of her original remarks.
"I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend, and I will not take advice from him on foreign policy," Sanders said, calling him the "most destructive" secretary of state in American history
Sanders' team may have felt it missed an opportunity to hit Clinton on Kissinger when she brought up the controversial diplomat at last week's debate. But this time they were ready. In fact, the campaign issued a press release within seconds of the exchange, listing 13 "egregious acts" he committed in his tenure, including allegations (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/books/review/kissingers-shadow-by-greg-grandin.html?_r=1) of launching an illegal war in Cambodia and supporting apartheid in South Africa (https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/waldmeir-miracle.html) (later in the debate Clinton name-dropped the late South African president Nelson Mandela as one of the figures in politics she respected the most).
Clinton defended her interactions and comments on Kissinger by saying that as secretary of state she listened to a variety of voices and opinions, weighing some more than others. She also questioned whether Sanders takes foreign policy issues seriously, citing recent media reports (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-korb-military-adviser-218482) that said the one aide he referred to as an adviser only had briefed him once.
"I don't know who you get your foreign policy advice from," Clinton quipped.
"Well, it ain't Henry Kissinger," Sanders replied.
It's unclear whether re-litigating American foreign policy from 40 years ago will resonate with voters, but Clinton and her campaign obviously believe foreign policy is her strength and any quick move towards that advantage is likely to frustrate the candidate and team who have prioritized showcasing her nuanced and broad grasp of issues she tackled as secretary of state.

Quote

Democrats who think Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is simply a stronger-than-expected sparring partner for Hillary Clinton may be in for a rude awakening. While the Republicans have their hands full navigating toward an alternative to Donald Trump, at least they have people in the race capable of doing so. Clinton, however, may be a dead-woman-walking, leaving the Democratic Party in the untenable position of nominating a socialist whose foreign and domestic policies are antithetical to the great majority of Americans.

Clinton's problems are threefold.

First and foremost, she has a serious legal problem, one that cannot be wished away by those indifferent to the facts. The FBI does not investigate and devote considerable resources for nothing. It does not lightly send a letter stating it is investigating a former high government official's use of an unsecured email. And someone (whether in the FBI, the Justice Department or some other corner of the administration) does not without good reason leak a story as damaging as this latest Fox News report (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/10/sources-at-least-dozen-email-accounts-handled-top-secret-intel-on-clinton-server.html):

At least a dozen email accounts handled the "top secret" intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton's server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News.
The official said the accounts include not only Clinton's but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and others.
A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

This sort of rampant mishandling of classified material cannot be swept under the rug, no matter how much Democrats want to believe this is some political fuss cooked up by Republicans. Whoever is leaking the information seems determined to make sure the FBI and/or the Justice Department cannot evade their obligations to move forward, as they would with any staff person who engaged in this behavior.

[Hillary Clinton, blind to her own greed, makes another blunder (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/02/04/hillary-clinton-blind-to-her-own-greed-makes-another-blunder/)]

In speaking with law professors, former Justice Department lawyers, former Hill staffers who have learned the rules regarding classified material and former national security officials, I have yet to find a single one who believes Clinton's legal risk is trivial. No, it is serious, and now so public that inaction becomes difficult for the FBI and the Justice Department.

The involvement of so many individuals raises the possibility, as any lawyer would know, that immunity will be granted in exchange for testimony, tightening the noose around Clinton. And that is just one of Clinton's problems.

Second, if the Democrats — as the Republicans have done with Trump — are waiting around for their voters to recognize how extreme and unelectable Sanders is, they are mistaken. The Democratic Party has fanned the flames of class warfare for so long, Sanders now sounds mainstream to them, and in a sense he is mainstream in a party that has vilified Wall Street, accumulated vast new power over segments of the economy (health care and financial services, for example) and no longer recognizes capitalism as a solution to poverty (despite worldwide evidence of such) (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim). Like the GOP, Democrats have indulged in protectionist hysteria in such a convincing fashion that Democrats have come to see trade as a threat and globalization as a negative. The president may not be as extreme as Sanders but his rhetoric has paved the way for Sanders. A president who ran up enormous debt, allowed entitlements to grow unchecked and characterizes most opposition to any government activity as evil or irrational can hardly be surprised when, after seven years, his supporters do not take budget math seriously. With seven years of a president who essentially ignored the multiplication of threats, no wonder Democrats put no weight on foreign policy acumen.

Third, Clinton is exactly the wrong person to stop the Sanders runaway train. In her concession speech in New Hampshire, she declared: "What are we going to do? And that is — that is the fight we're taking to the country. What is the best way to change people's lives so we can all grow together? Who is the best change-maker?" Honestly, it wouldn't be her. She — who won't release her speeches to investment bankers — cannot plausibly be the best person to take on Wall Street or clean up campaign finance rules. Maybe Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) or former senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) could make that case, but not Clinton.

[Hillary Clinton's latest attack on Bernie Sanders shows she's a rotten candidate (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/01/14/hillary-clintons-latest-attack-on-bernie-sanders-shows-shes-a-rotten-candidate/)]

Clinton and her supporters thought gender loyalty would save her. It has not. Now she thinks minority voters will ride to her rescue. But why should they? Sanders is giving away free stuff and telling them the system is rigged. Voters under 40 years old don't remember the Bill Clinton years; they remember Hillary Clinton as the candidate who tried to take down then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and the person who jetted around the world while Obama was delivering on health care. She has not as yet shown the talent to reconstruct the Obama coalition, despite her faith that identity politics will win the day. (In case you have forgotten, her "identity" is a rich, white woman.)

Clinton may not dig herself out from all of this. Democrats who don't think so are whistling past the graveyard of the Democratic Party. For months Democrats worried about an alternative to Clinton; now they should be worrying about an alternative to Sanders. Clinton may just not be up to the task.

QuoteDemocratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, and his wave Jane acknowledge the crowd as he arrives for his caucus night rally in Des Moines, Iowa, Monday, Feb. 2, 2016.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took the lead over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the first time Thursday in a national poll of Democratic primary voters.

In the Fox News survey (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/18/fox-news-poll-clinton-feels-bern-trails-sanders-by-three-points-nationally.html), Sanders captured 47% support among likely Democratic voters nationally. Clinton, who has long been the Democratic frontrunner, garnered 44%.

Though Clinton's lead has shrunk significantly over the past several months (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html), the Fox News poll is the first to show the senator ahead outright.

However, it presented a divergent result from other recent surveys. An NBC poll released Thursday evening showed Clinton maintaining an 11-point lead over Sanders nationally. Still, that represented a 14-point swing from when the same poll was conducted last month, before Sanders' double-digit New Hampshire primary win.

Both polls come just two days before Saturday's Nevada caucuses, where the few available public polls show the two candidates virtually neck-and-neck. Once considered a "firewall" for Clinton, Nevada has become a key battleground, as both candidates have rolled out campaign surrogates to woo interest groups like Latino voters and immigration activists (http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-julian-castro-immigration-nevada-bernie-sanders-2016-2).

Sanders has bombarded the state with ads and redeployed key campaign staff to the state in an attempt to make up ground against Clinton's team, which has been operating in state since April.

Quote
CBS's Scott Pelley interviewed Hillary Clinton (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-ive-always-tried-to-tell-the-truth/) on Thursday night. One exchange tells you everything you need to know about Clinton's struggles in the Democratic primary race so far and why she continues to be dogged by questions about her honesty and trustworthiness. Here it is:
>PELLEY: You know, in '76, Jimmy Carter famously said, "I will not lie to you."
CLINTON: Well, I have to tell you I have tried in every way I know how literally from my years as a young lawyer all the way through my time as secretary of state to level with the American people.
PELLEY: You talk about leveling with the American people. Have you always told the truth?
CLINTON: I've always tried to. Always. Always.
PELLEY: Some people are gonna call that wiggle room that you just gave yourself.
CLINTON: Well, no, I've always tried —
PELLEY: I mean, Jimmy Carter said, "I will never lie to you."
CLINTON: Well, but, you know, you're asking me to say, "Have I ever?" I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will. I'm gonna do the best I can to level with the American people.

Quote

A big multi-candidate primary field allows for more than one winner alongside plenty of losers and the South Carolina Republican primary was no exception.

Donald Trump took first place, of course. And delegates were handed out. But these are still early days. The real prize in South Carolina — like Iowa and New Hampshire before it — is momentum in the media and with donors and other supporters. It's a war of position as candidates try to set themselves up for the real delegate prizes that are coming in March. And for local, national, and global figures who aren't currently running for president it's about how the race helps them advance their own agendas.
     
So here are a few people who helped their cause Saturday night, and a few more who lost.
Winner: Donald Trump
There continues to be considerable skepticism in many quarters that Donald Trump will emerge as the Republican nominee, but at the moment all the evidence is that he is winning. For example, he just won the South Carolina primary. He won in the relatively moderate state of New Hampshire and then he won in the very conservative state of South Carolina. All he does is win.

There continue to be serious questions about how Trump would fare if the race were to narrow to just two candidates in some future scenario. But in the scenario that exists right now, he is winning.Winner: Marco Rubio
Second or third is worse than first place, and on one level Rubio clearly lost by not winning. But on another level, Rubio supporters who call it a victory are correct. By placing well ahead of the rest of the field, Rubio has further bolstered the case that Republican Party leaders should do everything in their power to muscle the other non-Trump, non-Rubio candidates out of the race and line up behind Rubio. His actual path to the nomination continues to be a little hard to see. At some point he needs to find a way to win some actual states. But the fact remains that he advanced his cause tonight.
     Loser: The Bush family
On the one hand, Jeb Bush suffered yet another humiliating defeat — so humiliating that he was forced to drop out. But the South Carolina loss was a larger loss for the entire Bush family. He brought in his mother and his brother — it didn't work. In fact, it got worse. Trump went out and trashed George W. Bush's record as president, slamming the Iraq War and the dishonest sales pitch for the war. He even pointed out that Bush was president on 9/11, and that the various intelligence failures surrounding that attack were, in part, failures of his administration. The idea that you can win Republican Party primaries while saying this kind of thing casts the entire legacy of the Bush family in a very different light.Loser: The South Carolina GOP
The South Carolina Republican Party really tried to turn their state into the graveyard of Trumpism. One senator endorsed Jeb, the other — and the governor — backed Rubio. The state party even packed a debate audience with Trump haters (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987776/republican-debate-audience-booing) whose constant booing clearly got under Trump's skin and made his performance look bad. It didn't do any good. Trump won. Not only did he win, he got more votes than Bush and Rubio combined. The establishment spoke, they acted, and they failed.
Loser: The Pope
Donald Trump loves a good fight, and Pope Francis gave him one (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/19/11073026/donald-trump-pope-francis), suggesting that Trump's wall-centric candidacy is un-Christian. Like everything else that gives Trump attention, it only gave him more reason to stay in the headlines and play his favorite role of tough guy standing up for America against the shadowy forces of the global elite. The Pope himself was clearly more concerned with his effort to focus attention on the humanitarian crisis facing millions of migrants globally than in narrowly impacting the US presidential race.

But migration issues ultimately need to be addressed through the political system, and at the moment the rise of anti-immigration populists in both the United States and a number of European countries is preventing that from happening. A Trump win is a loss for what the Pope was trying to achieve.

Quote

COLUMBIA, S.C. — With his second decisive primary victory, Donald Trump is now the clear frontrunner for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

The most pressing question now, after Trump's win in the South Carolina primary, is how long it will take for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz to knock the other out and take Trump on directly.
The longer that Cruz and Rubio divide up the non-Trump vote, the more time the New York real estate developer will have to rack up delegates and win 50 percent of the primary electorate in popular vote totals.
A field that at its peak numbered 17 candidates has, to all intents and purposes, been winnowed down to three. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush dropped out of the race a few minutes before 9 p.m. Saturday, after finishing in single digits in the Palmetto State. Ohio Gov. John Kasich looks determined to stay in the race for some time, but is regarded by many political observers as a sideshow who is merely angling to gather delegates and use them for his own purposes at the convention. And retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has proved an afterthought at the polls, although he has enough money to stay in for some time and insists that he has plans to.
The results Saturday night were another splash of cold water in the face of a Republican Party that had closed its eyes and desperately hoped for Trump's polling lead to evaporate as it did in Iowa, only to see the outlandish provocateur garner his second commanding win in a row.
"South Carolina, we will never forget you," Trump said in his victory speech in Spartanburg Saturday night.
Now the GOP establishment looks fearfully forward to a new phase of the primary contest. It moves to Nevada in just three days, and then to a slate of a dozen states on March 1, ten days from now. Of those March 1 states, seven are in the South or Midwest, and are likely to tilt strongly toward Trump.
Trump, with 33 percent in South Carolina, cleared the 30 percent bar that many had pegged as a barometer for showing whether or not he had lost momentum over the last few days. Rubio and Cruz were locked in a dead heat for second place, at 22 percent each.
Trump won a majority of votes from veterans in this state, which has a strong military presence, despite the fact that he explicitly blamed former President George W. Bush for the 9/11 attacks in a debate one week ago. Trump argued in that debate that the Bush administration "lied" about whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The South Carolina primary has been won by the eventual Republican nominee in every presidential primary since 1980, with the exception of the last one, in 2012, when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia was the victor. And Trump's method of winning the Palmetto State this week defied logic or historical comparison. "Trump won this week despite coming out for [a] health care mandate, defending planned parenthood, blaming Bush for 9/11, standing by impeachment," wrote (https://twitter.com/chucktodd/status/701208529642717187) NBC's Chuck Todd on Twitter.
The big question for Trump is whether he can rise above 35 percent, his total support in New Hampshire, in any state. If he cannot, and Cruz and Rubio both stay in, interminably, then the Republicans could be headed for a contested convention. If he cannot, and either Cruz or Rubio knocks the other out, then whoever takes him on will be poised to defeat him, despite his early wins.
At least that's the theory of many Republican political consultants who have been watching the race.
Trump disagrees that Cruz or Rubio voters won't turn to him if one of the candidates leaves the field. "As people drop out, I'm going to get a lot of votes also," Trump said in his victory speech.
Cruz has engaged in a withering back-and-forth with Trump over the past few weeks, while Rubio has largely avoided any engagement with the frontrunner. But Rubio may no longer have a choice on whether to take on Trump directly. Trump signaled Saturday that he may soon put the Florida senator in his sights, tweeting (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701089616825159680) that Rubio is "very weak on illegal immigration."
In exit polls, Trump won big with voters who like a candidate who "tells it like it is." Cruz won support from voters who look for a candidate who "shares my values." Rubio won among voters who look for someone who "can win in November."
At the Trump rally, aides backstage devoured public exit polls with glee, noting Trump's wins in demographic categories where he had been underestimated, including evangelicals and hard-core conservatives in upstate South Carolina. They believe it signals momentum heading into the March 1 states, where they once viewed Cruz as their biggest threat but now see him as increasingly neutralized.
"If Cruz can't win South Carolina, where can he win?" a Trump aide, who declined to be named, told Yahoo News.
But even as Trump aides were making a victory lap, there were subtle shifts in strategy in South Carolina that will continue into future contests. In the final days of the primary, Trump added events at smaller venues, and he began making more unannounced stops — including swings through small-town diners. On Friday, the candidate campaigned from early morning until nearly 10 p.m. at night — not unusual for most candidates, but unusual for Trump, who typically flies home to New York every night.
For Cruz, the results were a disappointment. He had owned second place in polls in the state until very recently, and hoped after winning Iowa to do well in New Hampshire — where he came in third — and then to prevail again in heavily evangelical South Carolina. But Trump won evangelical voters here 32 percent to 27 percent for Cruz.
Cruz has outstanding organizations in many states set to vote on March 1 and beyond, and is extremely well-funded. But he must fight to keep the Republican electorate from concluding that the race should be narrowed to Rubio vs. Trump. Cruz will be helped by the fact that many conservative Christian voters in the March 1 primary states across the South will remain attracted to him. But he will have to fend off Rubio's courtship of the slice of that voting bloc who will never vote for Trump.

Cruz, speaking last of all the candidates on Saturday night, argued that he is the only conservative remaining in the race, and that he is also the best hope for Republicans to defeat Trump.
"Only one strong conservative is in a position to win this race," Cruz said. "We are the only campaign that has beaten and can beat Donald Trump."
Looking ahead to March 1, Cruz's campaign manager, Jeff Roe said his operation has "been built for this day for the entire time." Roe said the so-called SEC primary is "an electoral map that favors us."
"And then, after that we're going to go and battle out in the winner-take-all states and decide who the nominee is. So, every piece of what we've been talking about has come together," Roe said.
Rubio's campaign breathed a sigh of relief, given the candidate's situation just a week ago, when the Florida senator appeared to be on the ropes after his disastrous debate performance on Feb. 6 in New Hampshire. The argument undergirding the candidacies of governors Bush, Kasich and New Jersey's Chris Christie — that a governor with executive experience was better prepared to be president than a senator —received a fresh hearing that week.
But a steady debate performance this past Saturday, an endorsement from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and strong campaigning helped Rubio recover and survive. He had once hoped for a win here in this state, just as Cruz had, and would have been well-positioned here had he not stumbled in New Hampshire. Now he must gird himself for a long and brutal primary if he wants to win.
In an impressive election night speech inside an industrial warehouse — just a few hundred yards from the Cruz event — Rubio acknowledged that he had arrived in South Carolina 10 days ago "in search of a new beginning and a fresh start."
"Many thought it was over," Rubio said. "South Carolina will always be the place of new beginnings and fresh starts."
For Bush, the results Saturday night were a heavy blow, following a few days in which his candidacy went from hopeful to knocked out. After over-performing in New Hampshire, Bush got a two point bump right away. But his performance there came at an enormous cost, with data showing (https://morningconsult.com/briefs/campaigns-brief-how-to-watch-new-hampshire/) that he spent $36 million in New Hampshire between his campaign and his super PAC, compared to just $3.7 million for Trump and only $580,000 for Cruz.
Then came the debate bloodbath on Feb. 13, a debate in which Cruz and Rubio ripped into one another and Bush tried to take on Trump, with some success. Trump looked intemperate and out of control and was booed repeatedly.
"I believe Jeb Bush has emerged as the alternative to Donald Trump," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/another-cruz-and-rubio-flame-war-benefits-bush-050042637.html) on CBS News after the debate.
On Sunday and into Monday, there was the possibility that Jeb might be mounting a comeback, especially when it was announced that his older brother George W. Bush would come Monday to campaign for him.
The former president ridiculed and criticized Trump, but did not name him. George W. Bush described his brother as "a man of deep and humble faith that reveals itself through good works, not loud words."
"Strength is not empty rhetoric, it is not bluster, it is not theatrics," Bush said. "Real strength comes from integrity and character."
But it all made no difference.
Trump held an hour-long press conference Monday afternoon to distract from the former president's campaign stop and assiduously avoided any direct and open confrontation with George W. Bush. With Trump avoiding escalation and focusing his rhetoric on Cruz, there was no real reason for W. to respond without risking more political capital than he was willing to. Bush advisers said the former president would have likely campaigned again if Trump had gone after him. Instead, Trump hid, and George W. Bush did not appear again.
Then Wednesday, press reports leaked in the morning that Haley would endorse Rubio. It was a gut punch for Bush, who had just the day before called winning her support "the most meaningful endorsement" in the state.
Haley endorsed Rubio Wednesday night and she campaigned with him all day Thursday and Friday, along with African-American U.S. Senator Tim Scott and 51-year old Rep. Trey Gowdy, offering the GOP a picture of what their national profile might look like if Rubio won the nomination and picked Haley as his running mate.
In his concession speech, Bush choked back tears as he spoke and thanked his family.
"I'm proud of the campaign that we've run to unify our country," Bush said, "but the people of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken and I really respect their decision."
"I congratulate my competitors who are remaining on the island," Bush said with a slight chuckle.
South Carolina had been kind to the Bush family in the past. George H.W. Bush, Jeb's father, won it in 1988 after losing Iowa to Sen. Bob Dole. George W. Bush won it in 2000 after losing to Sen. John McCain in New Hampshire.
But in 2016, a third Bush's presidential campaign came to an end in the Palmetto state.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 22-02-2016, 07:08:41
Ovo je verovatno duhovito ako čovek gleda Game of Thrones. Ali taj čovek, jelte, nisam ja...


http://youtu.be/I0tE6T-ecmg (http://youtu.be/I0tE6T-ecmg)

QuoteVašington -- Kandidat za nominaciju republikanaca na izborima Donald Tramp lako je pobedio u saveznoj državi Nevadi, osiguravajući tako vođstvo u trci za nominaciju.

Quote
MIT professor and intellectual Noam Chomsky attributes Donald Trump's success in the Republican presidential primary to "fear" and a "breakdown of society."
In an interview published (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-we-owe-rise-trump-fear-and-breakdown-society) Tuesday, AlterNet's Aaron Williams asked Chomsky for his thoughts on Trump's "surprising progress." After a second-place finish in Iowa, the billionaire has stormed to consecutive double-digit wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.
"Fear, along with the breakdown of society during the neoliberal period," Chomsky responded. "People feel isolated, helpless, victim of powerful forces that they do not understand and cannot influence."
Chomsky compared the political environment that's allowed Trump to flourish to the 1930s, when the U.S. was in the Great Depression. "Objectively, poverty and suffering were far greater," Chomsky said. "But even among poor working people and the unemployed, there was a sense of hope that is lacking now, in large part because of the growth of a militant labor movement and also the existence of political organizations outside the mainstream."
Trump and Hillary Clinton are leading in their respective primaries, but Chomsky demurred when asked who he thought would win the White House.
"I can express hopes and fears, but not predictions," he said.
Chomsky has contributed to Bernie Sanders' campaigns in the past but said he would "absolutely" (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192) vote for Clinton over the Republican nominee if he lived in a swing state.
In an interview last month, Chomsky praised Sanders but said the Vermont senator didn't have "much of a chance" due to "our system of mainly bought elections."

Quote

The Republican establishment has a problem. It is headed for a car crash.
With Jeb Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/jeb-bush-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) out (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/us/politics/jeb-bush.html) of the Republican presidential race, the two remaining mainstream candidates — Marco Rubio (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/marco-rubio-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) and John Kasich (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/john-kasich-on-the-issues.html?inline=nyt-per) — are living out an issue studied for decades in game theory. Game theorists might call the G.O.P. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org) predicament an anti-coordination game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_game) or even a volunteer's dilemma. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer%27s_dilemma) But most of us might call it by a more familiar name: chicken (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_%28game%29).
Although Mr. Rubio is the obvious establishment favorite, leading Mr. Kasich in national polls (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary), prediction markets (http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination) and delegate math (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html), the two are splitting some votes. To have his best chance against Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, Mr. Rubio needs Mr. Kasich to drop out. The longer both candidates remain in the race, the worse it is for both of them. It's safe to assume neither would like to see Mr. Trump get the nomination.
In "An Essay on Bargaining," a classic paper (http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/richard.thaler/research/pdf/schelling.pdf) from 1956, Thomas Schelling lays out several strategies that may be useful for both Mr. Kasich and Mr. Rubio. Here, we focus on three: commitment, promises and threats. As Richard Thaler, the behavioral economist at the University of Chicago, explained, the strategies can be applied (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/business/the-art-of-bargaining-lost-upon-washington-economic-view.html?_r=0) to anything: health care, nuclear deterrence, the last piece of pizza.
Mr. Kasich's first option, of course, is to stay in the race. But he could go further, by committing to stay in no matter what. In a classic game of chicken between two drivers rushing headlong toward each other, this strategy is like removing your steering wheel, leaving you no choice but to drive straight toward your opponent.
Mr. Kasich could defend this choice by pointing to his obstacle-strewn but possible path (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/the-case-for-rubio-kasich/) to the nomination. He might point out that only a tiny fraction of Republican delegates have been allocated; he might note that he could pick up many of Mr. Bush's voters (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/21/us/will-bush-votes-go-to-trump-cruz-rubio-kasich.html); he could hope for another robotic debate performance (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/us/politics/marco-rubio.html) from Mr. Rubio or even an implosion from the Trump or Cruz campaigns. This series of events is unlikely, of course. It doesn't matter how long Mr. Kasich actually intends to stay in the race. All that matters is whether Mr. Rubio believes he will do so. (If you're going to remove your steering wheel, make sure the other driver sees you do it!) The more believable the commitment, the stronger his negotiating position for the far more effective strategy in brinkmanship games: cutting a deal.
Side deals, bargains or promises are the way negotiations actually get done. In a 1984 paper (http://faculty.som.yale.edu/barrynalebuff/DragonSlaying_JPE1984.pdf) on the private supply of a public good, the economists Christopher Bliss and Barry Nalebuff wrote that "binding agreements combined with side payments can always produce a superior outcome" to brinkmanship.
Some deals are obvious; the best such deal would be a spot on the presidential ticket, which Mr. Rubio could offer Mr. Kasich in exchange for dropping out — provided he becomes the nominee, of course. (A simple Google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=rubio+kasich+side+deals&oq=rubio+kasich+side+deals&aqs=chrome..69i57.2723j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8) of "Rubio Kasich side deals" produces no shortage of opinions on the matter.)
There are other potential promises. It might take the form of a concession on another matter — Mr. Rubio could promise to adopt or address some of Mr. Kasich's issues, which would allow Mr. Kasich to end his campaign and claim a small victory. In the book "Prisoner's Dilemma (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004KPM1GM/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1)," William Poundstone suggests (http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/10/books/books-of-the-times-is-this-theory-about-games-or-life-well-both.html) that the best solution to a game of chicken is one that allows the losing party to give in while still "saving face." He noted its role in bringing a peaceful end to the Cuban missile crisis (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/cuban_missile_crisis/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).
Regardless of the details, the quality of the deal depends on how much a Kasich exit matters to Mr. Rubio. The more crucial his exit, the stronger any promise is sure to be.
There is a third strategy available to Mr. Kasich, which takes the form of threats. Here, Mr. Kasich might insist on a promise or concession from Mr. Rubio; if he doesn't get it, he could threaten to support a different candidate, like Mr. Trump or Mr. Cruz. That move wouldn't serve shared establishment interests, but if the threat had the potential to damage Mr. Rubio enough, it could be a useful bargaining chip. "Being crazy is a strategy, but only if your opponent actually believes it," Mr. Thaler said. Of the three strategies described here, this seems least likely.
Two external factors complicate this matter further.
Part of the reason this dilemma exists in the first place is that mainstream Republicans lack the unity or influence to compel any cooperation. After the New Hampshire primary, one Republican likened (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/republican-primary.html) the battle among mainstream candidates to a hockey fight: "The gloves are off and the refs can't get in the middle of it." That's exactly right.
If establishment Republicans had a clear, unimpeachable leader who was not a participant in the race, that person might be able to compel a candidate to drop out and support whomever the party determined to be strongest, allowing candidates who quit to save face by saying they did it for "the good of the party." At the moment, no such leader exists for mainstream Republicans, resulting in a tragedy of the commons (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/gop-establishments-tragedy-of-the-commons.html)-like failure of collective action.
Second, this is a game that's played just once. The chance to be your party's nominee for president comes along only every four or eight years, even for the very luckiest candidates. If the candidates lived in a universe in which they could run for president hundreds of times, they might agree that, on average, their shared interests were better served by cooperating. Once in a while, Mr. Kasich might try to win the contest outright against long odds, but, on average, he would probably agree that cooperating, including alternating victories, was the best way to serve his and Mr. Rubio's shared interests. Game theory shows that in iterated dilemmas, played many hundreds or thousands of times, cooperation is a very stable strategy — one reason it is so common in nature.
But this is not an iterated dilemma. It's a one-time-only dilemma with a tremendous payoff for the winner. As much as Mr. Kasich might think about his legacy, the good of the party or even his own chances in 2020 or 2024, the future is very far away.
Ultimately, they risk an outcome neither he nor Mr. Rubio wants. As Daniel Diermeier, the dean of the public policy school at the University of Chicago, notes, "A very important lesson of game theory is that sometimes the world is a grim place." Correction: February 26, 2016 An Upshot article on Thursday about how game theory could explain the predicament faced by the candidates John Kasich and Marco Rubio in the Republican primary race misstated the subject of a 1984 paper by the economists Christopher Bliss and Barry Nalebuff. The paper was on the private supply of a public good, not the public supply of a private good.

Quote

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Hillary Clinton trounced her rival Bernie Sanders in South Carolina Saturday, her second decisive win in a week as she heads into Super Tuesday.

"Tomorrow, this campaign goes national," Clinton said to a fired-up crowd at the volleyball court in the University of South Carolina.
Her speech was largely aimed at GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, as if she were already the nominee making a general election pitch. "We don't need to make America great again. America never stopped being great," she said. "Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers."

She quoted Scripture and asked for more "love and kindness," setting up a sharp contrast to Trump.
The win dims Sanders' prospects but at the same time makes it even more urgent for Clinton to appeal to his supporters, a passionate part of the Democratic base she can ill afford to alienate before the general election.

Clinton campaigned hard in the state, drawing large, mostly African-American crowds to town halls and rallies across South Carolina. (ABC exit polling (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-south-carolina-democratic-primary-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=37...) showed that Clinton won 84 percent of the black vote.) She stressed her personal commitment to the state, which she first visited as a young lawyer fighting against a system that sent juveniles to adult jails, and slammed Sanders on gun control in particular. She campaigned with African-American mothers whose children were killed by police or in incidents of gun violence, and made reforming the criminal justice system and ending "systemic racism" a centerpiece of her stump speech.
Her high-profile surrogates also made the case that Sanders' courting of the black vote was driven by political necessity — flipping the script on the insurgent candidate who has run on his authenticity.
"Don't you come to my communities, talk about how much you care, talk your passion for criminal justice, and then I don't hear from you after an election. And I didn't hear from you before the election," Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey told a group of mostly black voters who gathered in a Methodist church in Florence to hear Clinton speak Thursday.
In a statement, Sanders congratulated Clinton on her win but said the race was far from over. "This campaign is just beginning," he said. "We won a decisive victory in New Hampshire. She won a decisive victory in South Carolina. Now it's on to Super Tuesday."
Sanders, surging after a big win in New Hampshire, hit a wall in this state, where exit polls suggested more than 60 percent of the Democratic primary voters were black. Despite outreach attempts and the testimony of African-American surrogates who crisscrossed South Carolina on his behalf, Sanders did not make significant inroads with black voters here. At a muted rally Friday night in Columbia, the Vermonter remained confident. "I'm going to need your help the day after the general election," Sanders told the mostly white crowd of a couple of hundred supporters.
His campaign team has long been prepared for the possibility that Sanders would lose in Nevada and Southern states (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wants-new-hampshire-to-be-his-173223318.html), where Clinton has stronger minority support. But they like his chances in Super Tuesday states such as Colorado, Massachusetts and Sanders' home state of Vermont. Sanders left South Carolina on Saturday morning for rallies in Texas and Minnesota, which both vote Tuesday. Still, in order to catch up to Clinton's delegate count, Sanders would have to win by wider margins in these states than polling shows he's getting (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-doesnt-need-momentum-he-needs-to-win-these-states/?ex_cid=story-facebook).
(https://s.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif)If Clinton keeps amassing delegates and Sanders is forced to concede this spring, the former secretary of state faces the daunting task of drawing Sanders' supporters to her without pivoting so far to the left that she alienates moderate Democrats in the general election. Clinton has had trouble attracting white men and younger voters. President Obama was reelected in 2012 with just 39 percent of the white vote, which has presented a new path to the presidency driven by galvanizing minority communities. Still, Sanders has attracted a disproportionate share of young voters, a demographic Clinton has acknowledged she needs to win over.
On Thursday, a high school senior asked Clinton what she would do to ignite the same kind of "fire" in young voters that Sanders has, suggesting that she start a youth advisory council and appoint him to it.
"I want to ... get all your information," Clinton said. "Your suggestion is a very good one." Clinton added that she knows many young people are supporting Sanders and called millennials "one of the most generous, tolerant, connected generations in human history."
"I know they may not be for me now, but I'll be for them always," she said, a line she's repeated several times.
Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said earlier Thursday that Clinton wants Sanders' voters to get to know her better and believes she can talk them over to her side with time.
"We just refuse to accept that we can't convince them," Palmieri said of Sanders' supporters, particularly the young ones. "He has very committed supporters, and we respect that. ... These are people that are engaged enough to care. [Clinton] was one of those people.
"She wants them to know her better," she said.
But some hardcore Sanders supporters, who label themselves "Bernie or Bust," said they would rather sit out the general election than cast their vote for Clinton.
Shawn Crowe, a 49-year-old Columbia native who works on refrigeration equipment, said he was a lifelong Republican until 2012, when he became disillusioned with how the party treated Ron Paul. He threw his support behind Sanders last May.
If Clinton wins the nomination, he won't vote for her for president.
"That's not really for partisan reasons. I just don't trust her," he said at a rally for Sanders in Columbia. "There's going to be a lot of people [like me]. We call them 'Bernie or Bust' people. I'm one of them. I don't have a plan B."
The rapper Killer Mike, a Sanders surrogate, said he hadn't made up his mind what he would do if Clinton runs against a Republican.
"To be honest with you, I don't know," he said while at a campaign stop at the Phlayva barbershop. "Because I just don't support oligarchies. I don't wish to vote for another Clinton or Bush."
Others at the Sanders rally said they'd hold their nose and vote for Clinton. "I wouldn't really want to, but I'd have to," said Anna Mesa, 22. "I don't trust her."
Still, some Sanders supporters have already made the jump, hoping to get the party united around one nominee to have a better shot at beating whomever the Republicans put up.
Columbia resident James Anthony was persuaded to shift his support from Sanders to Clinton by his friend Carole Benson. "She told me that a vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump," Anthony said at a rally for Clinton Thursday night. "I love his ideas, I love the idealism. But it's not doable."(https://s.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 02-03-2016, 08:37:04
Sasvim moguće da će na kraju izbori da se svedu na Tramp vs. Klinton.

Quote
From Lewinsky to Benghazi, the Clinton political playbook bursts with unapologetic contradictions

Bill Clinton (http://observer.com/2016/01/bill-clinton-bombs-in-his-first-solo-speech-in-new-hampshire/) has once again exhibited a lack of integrity.

During yesterday's Super Tuesday primaries, the former president entered (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/01/did-bill-clinton-violate-election-rules-mass/5octlX1d28GwmN3kitiECK/story.html) a polling station with Boston mayor Marty Walsh while campaigning for his wife in Massachusetts, a state that could have swayed for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. It is illegal to campaign within 150 feet of a polling station, and given that he was an elected official for several years, Mr. Clinton was certainly aware he was breaking the rules.

Mr. Clinton defended himself, arguing he did not campaign or approach voters. But, because of his notoriety, he didn't need to approach anyone—they were bound to confront him. When one voter asked (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/03/01/bill-clinton-massachusetts-voting-laws/) for a photo with Mr. Clinton, he smugly responded, "as long as we're not violating any election laws." He knew there would be no reprehension because of his powerful political status, while in 2008 he continuously accused (http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/01/bill-clinton-says-he-witnessed-voter-suppression-005418) the Obama campaign of voter intimidation.

If Jane Sanders or the spouse of any Republican presidential candidate were to do what Mr. Clinton did, there would be outrage from the Clinton campaign in retaliation.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated disrespect for their constituency throughout their political careers, and this has been epitomized by their recent interactions with protesters at their events.

At a Clinton campaign rally last week, a former marine vocalized (http://nypost.com/2016/02/27/shut-up-and-listen-bill-clinton-tells-off-retired-marine-during-speech/) his disdain for how Ms. Clinton handled Benghazi as Secretary of State, and Mr. Clinton responded by yelling at the individual to "shut up and listen." Ms. Clinton displayed this same abrasiveness when interrupted by a Black Lives Matter activist (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/25/politics/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter-whichhillary/) at one of her $500-a-plate fundraisers. Ms. Clinton immediately responded to the activist angrily, out shouting the activist until security forcibly removed him from the fundraiser. During similar disturbances, her opponent, Mr. Sanders, either (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/) let the activist speak or addressed them in an understanding, compassionate manner. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton knew the incidences were being videotaped and would receive national attention, yet still reacted with entitlement—for who dares interrupt them when they are speaking?

The Clinton records are permeated with unabashed entitlement and disrespect for the people they were elected to represent. Mr. Clinton was caught lying under oath and was nearly impeached for it. He also has a long history of sexual harassment and assault, stemming from Gennifer Flowers, who in 1992 admitted (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/cron/) she had a 12-year affair with him. Mr. Clinton told Steve Kroft during a 60 Minutes interview in 1992 he had caused pain in his marriage, but that didn't stop him from involving himself in similar scandals with Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/).

Ms. Clinton's political record is filled with unapologetic contradictions. Nearly everything she has said during the 2016 presidential primaries can be traced back to completely contradictory past statements, and when confronted she reverts to planned, dismissive talking points. Ms. Clinton repeatedly obstructed the investigation into her e-mail server (http://observer.com/2016/02/a-liberal-explains-why-emailgate-is-not-a-gop-smear-campaign/) as Secretary of State, dodged her involvement in the Benghazi scandal (http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-role-benghazi-know-195600379.html) and has refused to release her speech transcripts (http://observer.com/2016/02/clinton-aligns-with-republicans-to-hide-wall-street-influences-in-speeches/) to large financial firms while claiming to be the champion of Wall Street reform. (http://observer.com/2016/02/why-wall-street-gives-hillary-clinton-millions-of-dollars/) She has attacked Mr. Sanders for discrepancies on his record for gun control (http://time.com/4177893/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gun-control/), while an NRA lobbyist (https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser/) will be co-hosting a fundraiser for her in mid-March. Her role as Secretary of State during the Obama administration is touted as a qualification for the presidency, when in reality her foreign policy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hilary-clinton-and-the-is_b_8627042.html) was interventionist (http://www.salon.com/2016/02/28/dnc_vice_chair_resigns_endorses_sanders_blasts_clintons_interventionist_regime_change_policies/), resulting in a reduction in safety and national security as the war in Iraq imploded into the rise of ISIS in the Middle East.

Once a proponent (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-health-care-thank-you) for rallying Democrats to make universal healthcare a reality, Ms. Clinton now criticizes Mr. Sanders for his single payer healthcare plan while racking up more donations (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257234-clinton-brings-in-most-big-pharma-money-of-2016-field) from large pharmaceutical companies than any other candidate. She has merely adopted (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/hillary-expected-to-adopt-all-of-sanderss-positions-by-noon) popular aspects of Mr. Sanders' campaign platform to appease Democrats to the left with meaningless social justice (http://observer.com/2016/02/the-totalitarian-doctrine-of-social-justice-warriors/) rhetoric to compound her loyal support from the moderate Democratic establishment. Leading up to the Democratic presidential primaries, Ms. Clinton used her political and corporate influence (http://observer.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-good-lawyer-awful-president/) to virtually crown herself the Democratic presidential nominee, similar to how she selected New York in 2000 to serve (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/08/politics/08YORK.html?pagewanted=all) as U.S. Senator, a state to which she had no unique ties but knew she could win with little-to-no opposition. Politicians are generally thought to be two-faced on some level, but Bill and Hillary Clinton take it to appallingly shameless levels.

Quote
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Koch brothers, the most powerful conservative mega donors in the United States, will not use their $400 million political arsenal to try to block Republican front-runner Donald Trump's path to the presidential nomination, a spokesman told Reuters on Wednesday.
The decision by the billionaire industrialists is another setback to Republican establishment efforts to derail the New York real estate mogul's bid for the White House, and follows speculation the Kochs would soon launch a "Trump Intervention."
"We have no plans to get involved in the primary," said James Davis, spokesman for Freedom Partners, the Koch brothers' political umbrella group. He would not elaborate on what the brothers' strategy would be for the Nov. 8 election to succeed Democratic President Barack Obama.
Three sources close to the Kochs said the brothers made the decision because they were concerned that spending millions of dollars attacking Trump would be money wasted, since they had not yet seen any attack on Trump stick.
The Koch brothers are also smarting from the millions of dollars they pumped into the failed 2012 Republican presidential bids of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the sources said.
Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks about the results of Super Tuesday primar ...Donors and media reports have speculated since January, when the Kochs gathered 500 of America's wealthiest political donors at a California resort, that they would deploy their vast political network to target Trump.
The Kochs oppose his protectionist trade rhetoric and hardline views on immigration - which include building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and deporting millions of illegal immigrants.
Many Republican figures and business backers are eager to see Trump, a political outsider who has tapped into rising anti-establishment sentiment, fail in his bid for the nomination. They prefer instead a more traditional candidate like U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.
But with Trump racking up a series of wins in the early nominating contests against opponents including Rubio and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, there is a growing sense of inevitability that he will win the party's mantle.

Quote

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — In a split decision, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump each captured two victories in Saturday's four-state round of voting, fresh evidence that there's no quick end in sight to the fractious GOP race for president. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders notched wins in Nebraska and Kansas, while front-runner Hillary Clinton snagged Louisiana, another divided verdict from the American people.
Cruz claimed Kansas and Maine, and declared it "a manifestation of a real shift in momentum." Trump, still the front-runner in the hunt for delegates, bagged Louisiana and Kentucky. Despite strong support from the GOP establishment, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio had another disappointing night, raising serious questions about his viability in the race.
Trump, at a post-election news conference in West Palm Beach, Florida, declared himself primed for a head-on contest between himself and Cruz, and called for Rubio to drop out.
"I would like to take on Ted one-on-one," he said, ticking off a list of big states where he said Cruz had no chance. "That would be so much fun."
Cruz, a tea party favorite, said the results should send a loud message that the GOP contest for the nomination is far from over, and that the status quo is in trouble.
"The scream you hear, the howl that comes from Washington D.C., is utter terror at what we the people are doing together," he declared during a rally in Idaho, which votes in three days.
With the GOP race in chaos, establishment figures frantically are looking for any way to derail Trump, perhaps at a contested convention if no candidate can get enough delegates to lock up the nomination in advance. Party leaders — including 2012 nominee Mitt Romney and 2008 nominee Sen. John McCain — are fearful a Trump victory would lead to a disastrous November election, with losses up and down the GOP ticket.
"Everyone's trying to figure out how to stop Trump," the billionaire marveled at an afternoon rally in Orlando, Florida, where he had supporters raise their hands and swear to vote for him.
Trump prevailed in the home state of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been critical of the front-runner for incendiary comments on Muslims and a slow disavowal of white supremacist groups.
Rubio, who finished no better than third anywhere and has only one win so far, insisted the upcoming schedule of primaries is "better for us," and renewed his vow to win his home state of Florida, claiming all 99 delegates there on March 15.
But Cruz suggested it was time for Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich to go.
"As long as the field remains divided, it gives Donald an advantage," he said.
Campaigning in Detroit, Clinton said she was thrilled to add to her delegate count and expected to do well in Michigan's primary on Tuesday.
"No matter who wins this Democratic nomination," she said, "I have not the slightest doubt that on our worst day we will be infinitely better than the Republicans on their best day."
Tara Evans, a 52-year-old quilt maker from Bellevue, Nebraska, said she was caucusing for Clinton, and happy to know that the former first lady could bring her husband back to the White House.
"I like Bernie, but I think Hillary had the best chance of winning," she said.
Sanders won by solid margins in Nebraska and Kansas, giving him seven victories so far in the nominating season, compared to 11 for Clinton, who still maintains a commanding lead in competition for delegates.
Sanders, in an interview with The Associated Press, pointed to his wide margins of victory and called it evidence that his political revolution is coming to pass.
Stressing the important of voter turnout, he said, "when large numbers of people come — working people, young people who have not been involved in the political process — we will do well and I think that is bearing out tonight."
Count Wichita's Barb Berry among those who propelled Cruz to victory in Kansas, where GOP officials reported extremely high turnout. Overall, Cruz has won seven states so far, to 12 for Trump.
"I believe that he is a true fighter for conservatives," said Berry, a 67-year-old retired AT&T manager. As for Trump, Berry said, "he is a little too narcissistic."Clinton picked up at least 51 delegates to Sanders' 45 in Saturday's contests, with delegates yet to be allocated.
Overall, Clinton had at least 1,117 delegates to Sanders' 477, including superdelegates — members of Congress, governors and party officials who can support the candidate of their choice. It takes 2,383 delegates to win the Democratic nomination.
Cruz will collect at least 60 delegates for winning the Republican caucuses in Kansas and Maine, Trump at least 46 and Rubio at least 13 and Kasich eight.
In the overall race for GOP delegates, Trump led with at least 375 and Cruz had at least 291. Rubio had 123 delegates and Kasich had 33.
It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president.

Quote
Ted Cruz pitches himself as an overcomer, an underdog, an outsider who beats the odds.
While the Republic candidate has won four states in this nomination race so far, a neurologist says he still faces a big obstacle with voters: his own face.
In an interview with Quartz (http://qz.com/629959/a-neurologist-thinks-ted-cruzs-face-makes-it-impossible-to-vote-for-him/), George Washington University's Richard E. Cytowic said the unusual movements of Cruz's face may make him seem less sincere to the human brain than other candidates.
"The normal way a face moves is what's called the Duchenne smile, named after the 19th century French neurologist. So the mouth goes up, the eyes narrow and the eyes crinkle at the outside, forming crows feet," said Cytowic, a professor of neurology.
"Cruz doesn't give a Duchenne smile. His mouth goes in a tight line across or else it curves down in an anti-Duchenne smile. So he doesn't come across as sincere at all."
That doesn't mean Cruz is actually less sincere than, say, the Duchenne-smiling Trump or Rubio, Quartz notes. It is completely normal to perceive him that way, according to Cytowic, perhaps making Cruz's political success all the more noteworthy.
Cruz also makes jabbing motions and other unusual body motions while speaking, Cytowic said, which can feed negatively into the split-second judgments the brain makes when analyzing anyone, including candidates.
That's because when the brain makes choices, he said, it seeks to simplify the decision-making process.
In doing so, familiar or pleasing physical attributes like the Duchenne smile can actually do more to sway a voter's preference for a candidate than his or her stated policies.
So while many voters may think they choose their candidates based solely on rational factors like policy, Cytowic said, that's unfortunately not the case.
"Looks trump policy—no pun intended," he said. "Sad, but true."
See Quartz's video interview here (http://qz.com/629959/a-neurologist-thinks-ted-cruzs-face-makes-it-impossible-to-vote-for-him/).

Quote

For those of you salivating — or trembling — at the thought of Hillary Clinton being clapped in handcuffs as she prepares to deliver her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention this summer (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/politics/democratic-national-convention-2016-philadelphia/): deep, cleansing breath. Based on the available facts and the relevant precedents, criminal prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails is extraordinarily unlikely.

My exasperation with Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state is long-standing and unabated. Lucky for her, political idiocy is not criminal. Ruth Marcus is a columnist for The Post, specializing in American politics and domestic policy. View Archive (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/ruth-marcus)
"There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction," American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. "This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case."

Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly — absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.

There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924), a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to "knowingly remove" classified information "without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location."

Prosecutors  (http://www.ncwd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general/Petraeus.pdf)used this provision (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf) in securing a guilty plea from former CIA director David H. Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation and fined $100,000 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/petraeus-set-to-plead-guilty-to-mishandling-classified-materials/2015/04/22/3e6dbf20-e8f5-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html). But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.

Petraeus clearly knew the material he provided to Paula Broadwell was classified and that she was not authorized to view it. "Highly classified . . . code word stuff in there," he told her (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-03/david-petraeus-to-plead-guilty-to-classified-information-charge). He lied to FBI agents, the kind of behavior that tends to inflame prosecutors.

In Clinton's case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.

The government used the same statute in 2005 against (https://fas.org/irp/congress/2007_rpt/berger.pdf) former national security adviser Sandy Berger (https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm), who was sentenced to probation and fined $50,000 (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/). Here, too, the conduct was more evidently egregious than what the public record shows about Clinton's. Berger, at the National Archives preparing for the 9/11 investigations, twice took copies of a classified report out of the building, hiding the documents in his clothes.

For Clinton, the worst public fact involves a 2011 email exchange  (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265367-clinton-defends-telling-aid-to-send-data-through-nonsecure-channel)with aide Jake Sullivan. When she has trouble receiving a secure fax, Clinton instructs Sullivan to "turn [it] into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure." But Clinton has said she was not asking for classified information. In any event, it does not appear her instructions were followed.

Another possible prosecutorial avenue involves the Espionage Act. Section 793(d) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793) makes it a felony if a person entrusted with "information relating to the national defense" "willfully communicates, delivers [or] transmits" it to an unauthorized person. That might be a stretch given the "willfully" requirement.

Section 793(f) covers (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/did-hillary-violate-the-law-against-disclosing-defense-information-a-preliminary-analysis.php) a person with access to "national defense" information who through "gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust." The government has used the "gross negligence" provision to prosecute a Marine sergeant who accidentally put classified documents in his gym bag (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/03/18/us-inconsistent-when-secrets-are-loose/6a928f72-d79b-430d-9c0b-93c67af05568/), then hid them in his garage rather than returning them, and an Air Force sergeant who put classified material in a Dumpster so he could get home early.

The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such "gross negligence" by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its "proper place" onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, "gross negligence" is a "nebulous (http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2252&context=lawreview)" term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.

My point here isn't to praise Clinton's conduct. She shouldn't have been using the private server for official business in the first place. It's certainly possible she was cavalier about discussing classified material on it; that would be disturbing but she wouldn't be alone, especially given rampant over-classification.

The handling of the emails is an entirely legitimate subject for FBI investigation. That's a far cry from an indictable offense.

Quote
Hillary Clinton is the only Secretary of State to delete 31,830 emails, from her own private server and without government oversight. Thus, we haven't seen all her emails yet. In fact, there are over 30,000 emails that the FBI or Bryan Pagliano might have been able to access, but none of us will see these emails. Tim Black offers a brilliant analysis of the Pagliano breakthrough, from an IT perspective, in this segment of Tim Black TV.

So, when you read those wonderfully titled articles about what we've learned from 55,000 pages of Clinton's emails, remember that over 30,000 were deleted; without government or third-party oversight.

Thankfully, Democrats have one person named Bernie Sanders who can type, and save an email, using government networks and without an FBI investigation.

As the only Secretary of State never to use an @state.gov email address, Hillary Clinton is also the only Secretary of State to use a private server exclusively. As Yahoo states, "Clinton acknowledged in March that she exclusively used a private email account and private server from 2009 to 2013 while secretary of state, opting against a government account despite official recommendations."

Sorry Hillary supporters, nobody in State Department history has ever used a private server exclusively, or completely circumvented a State.gov email address.

As for the spin regarding over-classification, Americans aren't allowed to see the 22 "Top Secret" emails on Clinton's server because they've been classified correctly. As I state in this YouTube segment, bring home Edward Snowden and free Chelsea Manning if America's intelligence community has an over-classification problem. As it is, Hillary Clinton's entire email saga has made a mockery of our intelligence community.

In addition to the 22 "Top Secret" emails the public isn't allowed to see, that Clinton's campaign believes is an example of over-classification, Clinton is the only government official ever to use a private server exclusively for work and personal correspondence.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what the corrupt officials in Bush's White House did, their behavior shouldn't be the standard by which we judge Clinton. I state my views of Dick Cheney and how he destabilized the Middle East in this Ring of Fire segment, but the days of "Bush was worse" are over.

Therefore, there's one question that all Americans, especially Hillary supporters, should ask.

Why?

Why did Hillary Clinton need to use a private server exclusively?


I ask why Clinton needed this server in my latest YouTube segment, and I'm especially interested in learning why from Hillary supporters.

The answer could very likely lead to Hillary Clinton's indictment, which would then automatically lead to a Bernie Sanders nomination and Bernie destroying Trump by 8 points in the general election.

On CNN, Lt. General Michael Flynn stated that Hillary Clinton should "drop out" of the presidential race and states "If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail." I mentioned Lt. General Flynn's views on the FBI investigation during my latest CNN appearance.

In regards to the unique aspects of the FBI's email investigation, POLITIFACT states "Although some former secretaries of state occasionally used personal emails for official business, Clinton is the only one who never once used an @state.gov email address in the era of email."

Thus, asking why she's the only Secretary of State who refused to use an @state.gov email address is not only relevant, but vital to understanding the severity of the FBI's investigation. As Dan Metcalfe states in POLITICO, "Hillary's Email Defense Is Laughable...I should know--I ran FOIA for the U.S. government."

Saying others did worse also can't explain the fact 100 FBI agents have worked on the case, especially since there's never been a presidential candidate in American history linked to an ongoing FBI investigation.

Yes, there are unique aspects of this story, and no amount of spin can erase the facts, or the reality that the FBI could call for the indictment of Hillary Clinton in early May.

Therefore, what were the reasons Clinton needed to act in such a manner?

Most likely, Brian Pagliano knows why Hillary Clinton needed to circumvent government networks, and I explained in a recent article why Pagliano's immunity is so important to this election.

Ultimately, if there was any reason other than convenience, then some laws were broken, because political containment and utility can't justify putting classified information on a private server. Retroactive classification is irrelevant; try putting a retroactively classified document, or a Top Secret document, on your computer and see what happens.

In all sincerity, if Hillary supporters at The Daily Beast and Daily Banter can enlighten us, that would be greatly appreciated. Any thoughts on why Hillary needed to circumvent government networks?

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates believes "the odds are pretty high" that Iran, China, or Russia may have hacked Clinton's server.

Edward Snowden says it's "ridiculous" to believe Clinton's emails were safe. In fact, the latest spin about security logs ignores the fact that these logs could have been tampered with, or the fact that hackers could have hacked into Clinton's server without any record on these logs.

Hackers already tried to break into Clinton's private network, as stated in a POLITICO piece last year titled Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany:

Hillary Clinton's private email server containing tens of thousands of messages from her tenure as secretary of state -- including more than 400 now considered classified -- was the subject of hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany...

In addition, Russia-linked hackers tried to access Clinton's emails five times. Also, Computer World states Hillary Clinton's email system was insecure for two months.

Regarding the over-classification spin by the Clinton campaign, there are 22 "Top Secret" emails nobody can see, and they're classified correctly. Most importantly, many of Clinton's emails were "born classified," or classified from the start, as stated by the Reuters:

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration...


Sorry, can't use over-classification as an excuse. There was intelligence on Clinton's server that should never have been on the server in the first place.

Then, of course, there's the issue of cloud servers. Even the employees at the firms storing Clinton's information on cloud networks "feared a cover-up."

Regarding this controversy, it would be perfectly fine for Bernie Sanders to bring up the FBI investigation in future debates, although he's refrained from doing so thus far. To say that Hillary Clinton would make an FBI investigation associated with Bernie Sanders an issue, would be the understatement of the century.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton was a "Pro-Gun Churchgoer" who called Barack Obama "elitist and out of touch." Regarding Clinton's 3 a. m. ad against Obama, Harvard's Orlando Patterson wrote in The New York Times that it contained a "racist sub-message" and "the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within." Also in 2008, ColorofChange.org president James Rucker stated "Senator Clinton's race-baiting must end today...She is sowing division and making the outrageous claim that white voters won't vote for a black candidate."

In fact, I mentioned Mr. Rucker's brilliant Huffington Post article during my interview on CNN New Day with Victor Blackwell.

Finally, while Bernie might not ask Clinton why she had the server, the answer will make him president. Hillary Clinton was the only Secretary of State since the invention of email never to use a State.gov email address, and the reasons why she used a private server exclusively will lead to Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination, and destroying Donald Trump in the general election.

In May, get ready for the media pundits and Hillary supporters to make the case for rallying around Hillary Clinton, despite indictments by the Justice Department. However, they'll have to answer the question I ask in my latest YouTube segment. If you can't answer that question without doubting Hillary Clinton's judgement or wisdom, then vote for Bernie Sanders in 2016.

Quote
To watch cable news, one would think that Bernie Sanders is still in the Democratic primary race simply to send a message to Washington, be a thorn in Hillary Clinton's side, play trainer to her Rocky, or some combination of all of these. Bogus super-delegate totals have been presented to the public as though these were votes either of the two candidates can count upon -- the mass exodus of super-delegates away from Hillary Clinton in the early summer of 2008 notwithstanding.

The reality, of course, is far more complicated. It suggests a close and tightening race between Clinton and Sanders that has every bit as much drama about who will finally win it as does the Republican nominating process. With that in mind, here are five reasons the Clinton-Sanders race remains must-watch television:

1. Hillary Clinton will not be permitted to win the Democratic nomination using super-delegates.

To test this assertion, imagine for a moment that the Democratic National Convention arrives and Bernie Sanders has a narrow lead in pledged delegates -- the delegates sent to the convention in Cleveland by Democratic voters rather than by the whim of party elders. What would happen in this scenario?

First, the national media would feature wall-to-wall coverage of Clinton "losing" the national vote for the nomination to Sanders; splash headlines on television and in print would announce Sanders as the clear winner of a majority of Democratic voters.

Second, some portion of Clinton's delegates would abandon her on principle, that principle being that super-delegates should cast their convention ballot for whoever won the pledged delegate battle during primary season -- and yes, some super-delegates do believe this. Third, Democratic elders would be forced to acknowledge, as many already do, that if the loser of the pledged delegate battle is named the winner of the Democratic nomination, the Democrats will without question lose the general election in November.

In this scenario the Democrats would lose in November because disaffected Sanders voters would either stay home on Election Day, vote for a third-party candidate, or cast a general-election ballot but leave the presidential-election portion of the ballot blank. This would be devastating to Clinton because Sanders voters are precisely the purple-state and independent voters any candidate for President will desperately need on Election Day.

Let's understand, too, what would have had to happen for Clinton to lose the pledged delegate battle to Sanders. It would mean that Sanders had earned about 60% of the vote in the final twenty-eight primaries, giving him such enormous momentum going into the convention that the idea of giving Clinton the victory via unelected, cigar-chomping politicos would seem positively deranged. Moreover, because Sanders would have beaten or tied Clinton in nearly every blue and purple state in America, super-delegates in close elections in these states would be particularly disinclined to anger the very electorate they'll rely on for re-election. This is where Clinton running strongest in light-red and deep-red states will really hurt her.

As if the above weren't enough, let's also understand that the most powerful Democrats in the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Nancy Pelosi, have all but said that super-delegates are not intended to be used to make a losing candidate into a winning candidate. This is precisely why the Democratic National Committee ordered the news media to stop tallying super-delegates prior to the Democratic National Convention, the first time these delegates are actually called upon to cast a ballot -- a demand that was inexplicably ignored.

Finally, let's remember that as things stand today, Sanders runs far better against Trump than Clinton in nine of the ten light-red, blue, and purple states in which head-to-head general-election polling is available. Now imagine that Sanders has pulled 60% of the vote in the final twenty-eight primaries; will any super-delegate in America feel any confidence whatsoever that Clinton could beat Trump under such circumstances?

In other words, while Clinton may or may not win the Democratic nomination for President, she undoubtedly will not do so using super-delegates. So you can safely ignore the super-delegate count and any pundit who references it portentously.

2. Hillary has already reached her high-water mark, and is only 14% above the delegate target she needs to hit to win the nomination.

Bluntly, Clinton has only won Southern states with demographics that are absent from nearly all future primaries and caucuses. Sounds far-fetched? Let's analyze it.

If you look at the Democratic primary map as it stands today, Clinton has won only three states that did not secede from the Union during the Civil War. Those three "wins" are Iowa, Massachusetts, and Nevada. While Clinton and Sanders more or less split the delegates in all three states -- the exact total is 89 delegates for Clinton, 81 for Sanders, an 8-point differential which, in the context of both candidates needing 2,026 pledged delegates to win the pledged delegate battle, is statistically insignificant -- all three states were effectively "won" by Sanders.

How so? Well, Sanders was down by 46 points in Nevada two full months after he declared his candidacy for President; by 23 points eight weeks before the Nevada caucuses; and he ultimately lost by just 5.5%, leading most commentators to say that if he'd had one more week to speak with Nevadan Democrats, he would have won a majority of their votes. Nothing about Clinton's victory in Nevada bespeaks her strength as a candidate; rather, it emphasizes only that name recognition and slightly superior financial, surrogate, and infrastructural assets is worth at least 5.5 points in a contested caucus.

The margins between Clinton and Sanders in Massachusetts (1.4%) and Iowa (0.2%) were so small as to render both elections a statistical toss-up; by comparison, Sanders' victory in Michigan, which was termed "exceedingly narrow" by every political pundit with access to a microphone, was by about 2%. But more importantly, in these cases, as in Nevada, Sanders so outperformed the polling that preceded the vote that it was clear that additional exposure to the Senator would have given him each of these two states, just as additional exposure to Secretary Clinton would have cost her both of them.

Which leaves the South. There are eleven Southern states; nine -- not coincidentally, the nine the Democrats have no chance of winning this November or in any general election in the next twenty years -- have already voted for Clinton, often by huge margins. Two Southern states still have to vote, and (again not coincidentally) these are Sanders' two strongest states in the region, which means that even if Clinton wins her delegate advantage will be nothing like it was in places like Mississippi and Alabama. The most recent polling in North Carolina has Sanders down by only 10, though this was before his wins in Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, and Michigan. The most recent polling in Florida is less kind, though according to CNN, Sanders' internal polling -- which has proven to be uncannily accurate -- suggests that the race there is in the "high single-digits." In other words, Sanders could win at least one of these two states, and will probably do all right in the delegate math no matter what happens.

In virtually every other state left to vote -- twenty-eight states, to be exact -- the demographics are substantially more favorable for Sanders than they were in even the "friendliest" state for him in the South (Virginia). Perhaps this is why he's leading in the most recent polls in Wisconsin, Utah, and Idaho, and after securing the endorsement of the most popular politician in Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, is favored to win there too. This may be why even the Clinton boosters on CNN are now saying that they're worried Clinton will lose Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri to Sanders next week.

In other words, Hillary performed impressively only in the South, and in less than a week there will be no more South for her to mine for votes.

3. Hillary can no longer rely on the "electability" argument, as Sanders runs much better than she does against Trump pretty much everywhere.

In the ten light-red, blue, or purple states where head-to-head general-election polling is available, Sanders outperforms Clinton against Trump in nine: Georgia, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Clinton outperforms Sanders in only Florida, where her 1% advantage on the Senator is dwarfed by that poll's 3.1% margin of error.

In short, it's entirely possible that Clinton is a better candidate against the all-but-certain Republican nominee precisely nowhere. Which means her "electability" argument, always the implicit centerpiece of her campaign, is gone. This will hurt her, as time goes on, with not just voters and pundits but super-delegates as well.

4. Hillary could still get burned by the email "scandal."

The fact that the man who Hillary let into her house to set up her email server just got immunity from prosecution in order to compel him to testify against someone higher up the food chain may not mean that Clinton will shortly be indicted for a federal felony. But what it does do is prolong this story well into the general-election season, which can't help but hurt Hillary in the Democratic primaries and caucuses to come. We can argue all day about whether this is fair or not, but it remains a reality either way -- and indeed a situation Clinton herself is only exacerbating by doing dodgy things on the campaign trail, like lying about Sanders' auto bailout vote, refusing to release her speeches to Wall Street tycoons, and calling into question the authenticity of photographic and video evidence of Sanders fighting for civil rights in the 1960s.

If someone close to Clinton does get indicted -- say, an aide -- it will be much more of a distraction than anyone in or outside the Clinton camp is presently assuming. To be blunt, there will be wall-to-wall news coverage of any indictment even tangentially related to Clinton, so if one comes down in April, May, or June it will hurt Hillary in any primaries or caucuses held during those months. While we can't know for certain the likelihood of an indictment being issued, I can say as an attorney that federal prosecutors do not give low-level targets immunity unless someone is being indicted.

5. It's much earlier in the nominating process than news media coverage of the Democratic primaries would lead you to believe.

Right now Hillary has only 28.4% of the pledged delegates she needs (677 of 2,378) to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Twenty-eight states still have to vote, and nearly all of these rank among the worst twenty-eight states for Clinton from a demographic standpoint. Sanders, with 478 pledged delegates, is only 14% off his delegate target -- that is, where he'd need to be at the present moment if he were "on track" to win the Democratic nomination -- and can breathe a sigh of relief that all ten of the worst states for him demographically are behind him.

To put things in perspective, we're still three months -- yes, a quarter of a year -- from the most important primary in the Democratic nominating season (California). In fact, June 7th is as Super a Tuesday as any other we've experienced so far, with six states going to the polls. Those six states account for more than 800 delegates in total; so more than a third of all the delegates one needs to win the Democratic nomination will be awarded three months from now.

A lot can happen in three months, a fact that seems impossible to dispute when you consider that, thus far, Americans have only been voting in primaries for five weeks. In five weeks, Sanders went from a curiosity sharing a stage with the likes of Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb to a legitimate contender for the Democratic nomination who's already won nine states. So yes, this thing is close -- very close.

Quote
#NeverTrump (http://theresurgent.com/the-importance-of-disclosing-this-immediately/)? More like #NeverMind.
The Republican establishment all but capitulated to Donald Trump on Thursday night, treating the party's frontrunner with kid gloves in the most subdued debate yet of the 2016 primary season.>Read more: Everything You Missed From the GOP Debate in Miami (http://mic.com/articles/137644/everything-you-missed-from-the-gop-debate-in-miami#.tzTlhoBiQ)

Quote

Well, at least I lived long enough to hear a presidential candidate from one of the major parties refer to "the so-called Monroe Doctrine."
It came during the most interesting passage in the debate Wednesday night between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders was asked if he regretted having once supported the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and having once paid some compliments to the Castro regime in Cuba.

Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government-democratically elected government of Guatemala. Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we've operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration's efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the-to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That's what that was about.

A few minutes later, as an addendum to an answer about her solution to Puerto Rico's crippling economic crisis, HRC pounced and pandered.

And I just want to add one thing to the question you were asking Senator Sanders. I think in that same interview, he praised what he called the revolution of values in Cuba and talked about how people were working for the common good, not for themselves. I just couldn't disagree more. You know, if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, you imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.

OK, I wanted to yell, "What about the Saudis/Chinese?" at my TV, too, and it did occur to me that HRC might want to ask her lunch buddy Henry Kissinger about his human-rights record some time. But what most struck me is the depth of the denial still about the profound costs of U.S. intervention in the affairs of our closest neighbors, and our easiest proxies, in the various Great Games. The Monroe Doctrine might have made sense when England, France, Spain, and even Portugal still had imperial ambitions. But that was a very limited space in time. By the mid-1800's, the Monroe Doctrine, and the philosophy behind it, was an excuse for land-grabbing. As one prominent American politician once put it,

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable-a most sacred right-a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such a minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

Of course, as we know, those remarks cost that Lincoln rube his seat in the House and ended his political career.
The 20^th century was even worse. We insistently meddled in Cuba throughout it, even though our meddling came dangerously close to blowing up the entire world. Within our own hemisphere, we backed dictator after dictator, oligarch after oligarch. We armed terrorists. We financed coups. We allowed bombings and drug smuggling. We sold missiles to the mullahs in order to finance our terrorists. Somoza. Pincochet. Batista. Rios-Montt. To paraphrase John Quincy Adams, we did not go far abroad to find monsters to support.These are just some of the people who did not live long enough to rebut HRC's presumption of American innocence:
The 68 passengers of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Cubana-5Fde-5FAviaci-25C3-25B3n-5FFlight-5F455&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=F2QVQOFiEntcvq7NWCX_16dnl9Zwp06715_7-WTSyFI&e=).
(But one of the architects of this atrocity, Orlando Bosch, died in a nice bed in Miami thanks to the intervention of influential Americans, including Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Jeb -!- Bush.)
The 900 citizens of El Mozote, El Salvador (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_El-5FMozote-5Fmassacre&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=PmVALXwmOJx6GZkCcczpK_1UGiShlmYm5urbepXULOk&e=).
(But one of the architects of the cover-up, the unspeakable Elliott Abrams (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.motherjones.com_mojo_2012_12_elliott-2Dabrams-2Dmassacre-2Ddenialist-2Dhailed-2Dstatesman&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=VNDCWntF30oNJvytA8aiHqk-8aZYBNxMdxaX_dlBYok&e=), now has a cushy gig advising Young Marco Rubio's crumbling presidential campaign.)
Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.thedailybeast.com_articles_2014_11_09_bringing-2Del-2Dsalavador-2Dnun-2Dkillers-2Dto-2Djustice.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=qF1w8oIVFxEElgQvCNrg8mEQo6d3DrC8fTostGYnz-U&e=), slaughtered by the US-backed Salvadoran national guard.
(But one of the architects of that cover-up, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan.)
Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__nsarchive.gwu.edu_NSAEBB_NSAEBB199_&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=T5mM8dqSTF8Ae_PfmQc7PSwCk13qRVwrXvSLKs_dtqE&e=).
(Pinochet, of course, died under "house arrest." And the boss of his Caravan of Death went straight to the depths of hell (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.com_news_world-2Dlatin-2Damerica-2D35768069&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=5eUMFIsYYl4SVO8P-mTjeqCof6c6gn7jfP6dJZSPVlY&e=) in a nursing home on Wednesday.)
Eight Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her son (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wsj.com_articles_allies-2Dbeware-2Dthe-2Du-2Ds-2Dis-2Da-2Dfair-2Dweather-2Dfriend-2D1433285681&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=V3hF88cPZowbAqdEtFk18uBQP_KnOm0ZDISGqv3bals&e=), gunned to ribbons in El Salvador.
(Abrams, again) (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wsj.com_articles_allies-2Dbeware-2Dthe-2Du-2Ds-2Dis-2Da-2Dfair-2Dweather-2Dfriend-2D1433285681&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=V3hF88cPZowbAqdEtFk18uBQP_KnOm0ZDISGqv3bals&e=)
Blessed Oscar Romero (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.catholicherald.co.uk_news_2015_05_25_francis-2Dbeatification-2Dof-2Doscar-2Dromero-2Dis-2Da-2Dcause-2Dfor-2Dgreat-2Djoy_&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=2Lyr0yBqJFhU1zrc-UozFxs9viWgdCBPXfBNlWy6px0&e=).
(But Roberto DeAubisson, the American-trained death-squad jefe who ordered the assassination, lived to die of cancer in what I am sure was a very nice hospital. He was a beloved figure (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newrepublic.com_article_120973_pope-2Dfrancis-2Ddeclares-2Doscar-2Dromero-2Dmartyr-2Dembarrassing-2Dreaganites&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=-A63I5QO29683Z17cj_rpHXz9nLgRZXHYMyrWjRyAWI&e=) among the Reagan foreign policy elite, until he became inconvenient and, yeah, Abrams again.)
This is only a partial list, of course. It doesn't include the thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and citizens of other countries who got caught in the gears of the so-called Monroe Doctrine down through the centuries. (Hola,Vera Cruz (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_2014_04_21_opinion_krauze-2Dthe-2Dapril-2Dinvasion-2Dof-2Dveracruz.html&d=CwMFaQ&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=C0G6Ae5N6o-49Sr-4B0ssYoInBjTRIEXRRb2OslIKxo&m=OLFT4golUPnfZqJ9dR5VDhdordJVz8tucK4eQvQOZa4&s=RNr5Fr1Aopjxk4H_OXe1tqxjmd9aKoS3_A43TwVkzb4&e=)!) The pundits are right that Sanders' statements back in the 1980s are fertile ground for conservative ratfcking-look how easy it was for HRC to turn them around on him-and likely would be used to make a meal out of him in a general election. The biggest problem that Sanders has here, though, is that he told a truth that we're still not prepared to hear. That Elliott Abrams has not been fitted with a leper's bell yet is proof enough of that.

Quote

CLEVELAND (AP) -- Hundreds of police officers, Secret Service agents and private security guards in cars, on foot and on horseback blanketed the area around Donald Trump's campaign rally Saturday afternoon. Dozens of protesters would soon be ejected from the event.
And that was the calmest rally in the past several days thrown by the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.
Welcome to Trump's new normal.
After months spent goading protesters and appearing to encourage violence, Trump has seen his raucous rallies devolve over the past two weeks into events at which chaos is expected. The real estate mogul is routinely unable to deliver a speech without interruption, and a heavy security presence is commonplace amid increasingly violent clashes between protesters and supporters.
On Friday, groupings of well-organized students succeeded in keeping Trump from even taking the stage at a rally in Chicago. The next morning, a protester rushed the stage at a Trump rally outside of Dayton, forcing Secret Service agents to leap on stage and form a protective circle around him.
"Frankly, I'm a little shocked that we got to this point, I'm shocked at it," said Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is vying with Trump to win his home state's winner-take-all primary on Tuesday.
"We cannot create in this country a toxic environment where images of people slugging it out at a campaign rally, think about it, are transmitted all over the globe," he said.
Trump's events have always been intense. For months, he incorporated interruptions by protesters into his speeches, growling "Get 'em out!" — sparking explosive cheers from the audiences as he did so.
While Trump sometimes appears angered by the disruptions, he has also embraced them, using the interruptions as opportunities to lead his supporters in chants of "USA, USA." He's also joked about how the protesters force TV cameras to pan out over the crowd and show how large they are.
But the confrontations began to escalate this month, most notably at a Trump event in New Orleans. A steady stream of demonstrators interrupted Trump's speech, including a huddle of Black Lives Matter activists, who locked arms and challenged security officials to remove them.
There were skirmishes throughout the speech, mostly pushing and shoving, although one man was captured on video biting someone.
This week, an older white Trump supporter was caught on video punching a younger African-American protester as police led the protester out of a rally in North Carolina. The supporter, later charged with assault, told an interviewer the next time he confronted a protester, "We might have to kill him."
Two days later, police arrested nearly three dozen people at a rally in St. Louis that was interrupted so many times by protesters that Trump joked about how long it was taking him to complete his remarks.
Hours before Trump was scheduled to appear Friday night at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the atmosphere inside a campus arena was crackling as protesters and supporters shouted back and forth, arms raised and yelling in each other's faces.
Some of the protesters, many of whom said they supported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, said they planned to rush the stage when Trump came out to speak. They didn't get the chance, as Trump called off the rally before even getting to the venue.
"It feels amazing, everybody came together," said Kamran Siddiqui, 20, and a student at the school. "That's what people can do. Now people got to go out and vote because we have the opportunity to stop Trump."
The next morning, Trump was mid-speech when a man, later identified by authorities as Thomas Dimassimo of Fairborn, Ohio, jumped a barricade and rushed at Trump. He was able to touch the stage before he was tackled by security officials.
Trump initially laughed it off, but later in the day, said Dimassimo had ties to the Islamic State. Experts who watched a video Trump tweeted as evidence called the allegation "utterly farcical."
"Trump's accusations about it being linked to ISIS serve only to underline the totality of his ignorance on this issue," said Charles Lister, a fellow at the Middle East Institute.
At the Cleveland rally, more than a dozen officers on horseback patrolled the outside as police helicopters buzzed overhead. Hundreds of officers massed inside to block some exits and sweep the audience out after the event ended. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally at the I-X Center Saturda ...More than 50 protesters, including a pair of doctors who removed sweat shirts to reveal white T-shirts printed with "Muslim Doctors Save Lives in Cleveland," were told to leave.
Things weren't much different at Trump's evening rally in Kansas City, Missouri, where protesters interrupted the candidate throughout his speech. While he asked his supporters not to hurt them, a visibly annoyed Trump also said he was "going to start pressing charges against all these people."
Back in Cleveland, Brandon Krapes said he was punched repeatedly after he held up his sign, which said, "Trump: Making America Racist Again." His 17-year-old son Logan had a freshly bruised cheek from what he said was a punch in the face he received while trying to help his father.
"The sheer amount of hatred in there is so blatant, and Trump does nothing to stop it," said Sean Khurana, a 23-year-old Cuyahoga Community College student, who is Indian-American. He said someone called him "ISIS" as he stood in line. "He provokes it."
Trump, meanwhile, celebrated a successful campaign day on Twitter.
"Just finished my second speech," he wrote. "20K in Dayton & 25K in Cleveland- perfectly behaved crowd. Thanks- I love you, Ohio!"

Quote
A 69-year-old Yorkville woman and her husband are defending her actions after a Tribune photo showed her giving a Nazi salute during an altercation with protesters outside UIC Pavilion Friday night following the ill-fated Donald Trump rally.
The photo of Trump supporter Birgitt Peterson went viral on social media this weekend, causing some to wonder about her motivation for making the gesture.
Peterson, who said she emigrated from West Berlin and has been a U.S. citizen since 1982, said the salute came during an argument with protesters and was simply her response to them giving her the Nazi gesture.
Her husband, Donald, insisted: "We're not skinheads, we're not Nazis."      Birgitt Peterson said she and her husband had left the UIC Pavilion after the rally was canceled because of security concerns. "I came out and lit a cigarette and all of a sudden, I was surrounded,'' she told the Tribune on Saturday.
She was wearing a Trump T-shirt, and a group of about 20 protesters began speaking to them, she said.
"The one lady, she said: 'Hey, white supremacist,'" Peterson said.
A woman grabbed the orange lanyard Peterson had around her neck that identified her as a member of the Illinois delegation to a past Republican convention, and then the woman let it go, she said.
Peterson said she told them: "Girlfriend, don't do this. If you want to talk, you have the right to be here to protest. I have the right to be here."
A protester told Peterson that she wanted the woman to "stay safe'' and urged Peterson and her husband to leave, she said. But they were cursing at them also, her husband added.
A young woman who had a shirt comparing Trump to Hitler accused the couple of voting for the Ku Klux Klan, Birgitt Peterson said, quoting the woman as saying, "Hitler is Donald Trump ... This is what you are. Why did you vote for this man?"            Peterson said she responded: "You should know that I haven't voted for anybody because the primary is not until Tuesday."
She said the protesters told her, "You are here to vote for Hitler," and they started giving a Nazi salute.
Peterson said she told the protesters she was German and asked them if they knew what the salute meant.
"So Birgitt decided to teach them to do it,'' said Donald Peterson, who insisted they were "not Nazis'' and absolutely not supporters or "saluting'' Adolf Hitler.
"I lifted my arms," she said, adding that in German she said, "Hail to the German Reich."
A protester who was photographed with Peterson, Michael Joseph Garza, told the Tribune on Saturday he did not believe Peterson was responding to anyone else when she raised her arm in the salute.
"I went up to her and said, 'Ma'am, please leave, we have understood you, we have made a (path),'" Garza recalled. "She said, 'Go? Back in my day, this is what we did,' basically, and then she hailed Hitler."
Jason Wambsgans, the Tribune photographer who took the picture, said he had more than a dozen photos of Peterson giving the Nazi salute but did not see any protesters doing the gesture and has no photos showing that.
Donald Peterson said having grown up in postwar Germany, his wife knows the emotional impact of Hitler's reign.
"It really makes her mad that they compare somebody (like Trump) to Hitler without knowing history," he said. "That is an insult to anybody who lived through it."

Quote from: Pepelbatto on 14-03-2016, 16:25:09
ja sam oduševljen Trampom

QuoteHackers affiliated with the Anonymous hacktivist collective have vowed to relaunch cyber-operations against US presidential candidate Donald Trump from 1 April. They threaten to 'dismantle his campaign' by taking his election websites offline in a large-scale and orchestrated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack.
In December 2015, Anonymous officially 'declared war (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/optrump-anonymous-declares-war-donald-trump-ddos-attack-following-muslim-ban-speech-1532739)' on Trump after a radical speech in which he said Muslims should be banned from entering the United States. The operation at the time resulted in a number of websites being targeted by hackers, but failed to have lasting impact.
A new video statement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciavyc6bE7A) has been posted to YouTube which claims the 'loyalists and veterans' of Anonymous have decided to ramp up cyber-operations against Trump – dubbed #OpTrump – on a far larger scale than ever before.
"Dear Donald Trump, we have been watching you for a long time and what we see is deeply disturbing. Your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States of America [but] you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas. You say what your audience wants to hear but in reality you don't stand for anything except for your personal greed and power."
The video, which features the traditional Guy Fawkes mask-wearing spokesperson speaking directly to camera, called the operation a "call to arms" for hacktivists across the globe.


"We need you to shut down his websites, to research and expose what he doesn't want the public to know. We need to dismantle his campaign and sabotage his brand. We are encouraging every able person with a computer to participate in this operation. This is not a warning, this is a declaration of total war. Donald Trump – it is too late to expect us."
In a separate written message posted online, Anonymous listed a number of websites chosen to be the initial targets in the attack including trump.com, donaldjtrump.com andtrumphotelcollection.com.
Alongside these chosen targets, the post lists a slew of unverified personal information purporting to belong to Donald Trump, including a social security number, personal phone number and the contact details of his agent and legal representation.
This is not the first time a hacking group has attempted to take on Donald Trump. In January 2016 a separate group called the New World Hackers carried out (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-campaign-website-new-world-hacking-claims-responsibility-ddos-attack-1535745) multiple DDoS attacks on his official election campaign website – effectively taking it offline for a short period of time. Recently, Anonymous leaked messages (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-leaks-donald-trumps-voicemail-messages-1548126) from his phone's voicemail account which included personal communications from journalists, sports stars and boxing promotors.
Anonymous, which is a loose collective of hacktivists, routinely engages high-profile targets as part of its cyber-campaigns. Previous subjects have included the Islamic State (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-anonymous-declares-war-isis-1528882) (IS), the Vatican (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-vatican-lulzsec-antisec-paedophilia-316240) and most recently the Turkish government (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/anonymous-hacker-unleashes-17-8gb-trove-data-turkish-national-police-server-1544131).
Read the original article (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/optrump-donald-trump-faces-total-war-anonymous-cyberattacks-april-fools-day-1549368) on IB Times UK (http://ibtimes.co.uk).  Copyright 2016. Follow IB Times UK on Twitter (http://twitter.com/IBTimesUK).

QuoteHillary Clinton is running for president as an "advocate of women and girls," but there is another shocking side to her story that has been carefully covered up—until now. This stunning exposé reveals for the first time how Bill and Hillary Clinton systematically abused women and others—sexually, physically, and psychologically—in their scramble for power and wealth.

Quote
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (http://thehill.com/people/bernie-sanders) is projected to win the Washington state caucuses. The win is a huge boost for the Vermont senator as he seeks to regain momentum in the primary and tighten rival Hillary Clinton (http://thehill.com/people/hillary-clinton)'s delegate lead.
Sanders will take the majority of Washington's 101 pledged delegates. With 30 percent of the vote in, the AP reports that Sanders leads Clinton by about 53 percentage points. The win will help him make a dent in Clinton's delegate lead. Entering Saturday, Clinton had 1,223 pledged delegates, with Sanders at 946 delegates. He made a strong play for the state, holding several rallies leading up to the caucuses. Clinton had earned endorsements from both of the state's Democratic senators, Patty Murray (http://thehill.com/people/patty-murray) and Maria Cantwell (http://thehill.com/people/maria-cantwell). Sanders has conceded that Clinton overwhelmingly defeated him in the South but said he'd perform better in West Coast contests. Sanders won the Alaska caucuses earlier in the day. Hawaii also will cast votes on Saturday. 

Quotepolovi tvrde da ga 70% žena mrzi

Quote from: lilit on 01-04-2016, 18:17:24
grejt jeste. za turizam posebno :mrgreen:

jednom ću da rentiram auto na istočnoj obali i vozim do zapadne.  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote from: Biki on 05-04-2016, 19:02:19

Quote from: lilit on 01-04-2016, 18:17:24
grejt jeste. za turizam posebno :mrgreen:

jednom ću da rentiram auto na istočnoj obali i vozim do zapadne.  :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jel mogu sa tobom lilit?
:!: :!: :!:

QuoteDonald Trump's presidential campaign unleashed a furious statement Tuesday night after Ted Cruz easily defeated him in the Wisconsin primary.
"Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet--- he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump," the Republican frontrunner's statement declared.
Instead of offering a note of praise like after past losses, Trump's Tuesday-night statement leveled a bevy of attacks against "Lyin' Ted Cruz."
Among other things, the statement accused Cruz of illegally coordinating with super PACs supporting his campaign, though he did not specify any evidence for the claim.
The Trump camp also claimed that its candidate "withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again" and noted that Cruz had the support of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and a number of local conservative radio hosts.
Trump had aggressively campaigned in Wisconsin and repeatedly predicted that he would win there. He barnstormed the state for days in hopes of catching up to Cruz after the senator started to pull ahead, holding six Wisconsin rallies (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-wisconsin-primary-ted-cruz-2016-4) between Saturday and Monday.
The billionaire still is hoping to salvage a few of the 42 delegates at stake. Although winning the statewide vote guarantees Cruz a batch of delegates, Trump can gain three delegates for each congressional district he wins. The data-journalism website FiveThirtyEight reported (http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/wisconsin-primary-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-21680064) that Trump was competitive in two of the state's eight districts.
Read the full statement below: Donald J. Trump withstood the onslaught of the establishment yet again. Lyin' Ted Cruz had the Governor of Wisconsin, many conservative talk radio show hosts, and the entire party apparatus behind him. Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC's spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC's (which is illegal) who totally control him. Ted Cruz is worse than a puppet--- he is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump. We have total confidence that Mr. Trump will go on to win in New York, where he holds a substantial lead in all the polls, and beyond. Mr. Trump is the only candidate who can secure the delegates needed to win the Republican nomination and ultimately defeat Hillary Clinton, or whomever is the Democratic nominee, in order to Make America Great Again.

Quote from: Biki on 06-04-2016, 03:41:15
Ne

Quote from: Pepelbatto on 06-04-2016, 01:33:53
ето објашњења зашто Бики не воли Доналда, ал нама који смо удаљени хиљадама миља Трамп је хилеријс!

Quote

Donald Trump is spending his time chastising Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) for condemning "New York values (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/politics/donald-trump-new-york-values-ted-cruz/index.html)." When Cruz first made the remark, we argued (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/01/13/tell-us-what-new-york-values-are-sen-cruz/) that it was foolish for him to insult voters whom he would later need to court. He's paying a price for that now, although Republicans in New York, he argues, understand what he meant ("the values of the liberal Democratic politicians that have been hammering the people of New York for some time"). That aside, Trump is running low on "safe" material and, you might have noticed, is not so omnipresent on cable TV news.

He used to insult many candidates, but most of them are out of the race.

He used to talk about his polls, but now he trails Hillary Clinton badly in a general-election match-up. Cruz has shrunk Trump's lead in California to single digits. Trump cannot say "Women love me," without facing a bevy of polls showing how unpopular he is with women.

Trump used to talk freely about foreign policy. Since his egregious gaffes on pulling back from NATO and letting Japan and South Korea get nukes, that topic has become dicey. In fact, his policy foolery makes discussion of any issue treacherous. On health care, he is getting scorned for his "incoherent mishmash (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/us/politics/donald-trump-health-care.html)" of half-baked ideas. On entitlements, no one thinks getting rid of "waste, fraud and abuse" is going to make Social Security solvent. His idea that he will eliminate the $19 trillion debt in eight years with a tax scheme that loses $10 trillion and without touching entitlements is laughable. Now, mainstream media interviewers are challenging his preposterous ideas while transcripts of his interviews with the Post and the New York Times editorial boards generate guffaws from conservatives.
  Listen to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump discuss some of his foreign policy positions with The Washington Post editorial board. "NATO is costing us a fortune," Trump said. "We're not reimbursed fairly for what we do." (The Washington Post) 
Trump's campaign promises a series of policy speeches. The danger there, however, is that someone might ask him questions about his remarks, forcing him to explain himself. That generally has not gone well. In a prepared speech last month at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) gathering, Trump barely got through the teleprompted remarks, and no one managed to edit out a reference to "Palestine," which Cruz pointed out does not exist.

Trump cannot talk about his ability to hire great people and his fantastic organization, given that he had to essentially demote his beleaguered campaign manager and bring in someone to try to stem the flood of delegate losses. Any effort to disguise the demotion of Corey Lewandowski vanished when Trump's new "convention manager," Paul Manafort, revealed that he reports directly to Trump. In fact, Trump's business experience is no longer a great topic for him either, now that the details of Trump University and serial failures (casinos, steaks, mortgages, vodka, airlines, football, etc.) have come to light.

There is always Sean Hannity to toss him softballs, but for the first time, the free-media environment has become treacherous. Losing races, mismanaging your campaign and flubbing a series of interviews will have that effect.

Quote
The revelations from the Panama Papers—leaked documents from a secretive Panamanian law firm that helps political elites hide their money—have been hitting home across the world, exposing the widespread corruption of world leaders and their hangers-on. It ought to hit here, too, because it reminds us of everything that should give us the heebie-jeebies about Hillary Clinton.  The Panama Papers have simply confirmed (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/panama-papers-money-hidden-offshore) everything we already pretty much knew. This is just the way things work in much of the world. Clawing your way into high political office means that you have a lot special of favors to give out, contracts to distribute, land and timber and shipping deals to approve, and so on. So you dole them out to friends, relatives, and backers—and they naturally show their gratitude by kicking some of it back to you. And if you don't officially get rich—well, mi casa es su casa, what's a little sharing between friends? This has long been Vladimir Putin's method. "In 2010, US diplomatic cables suggested Putin held his wealth via proxies. The president formally owned nothing, they added, but was able to draw on the wealth of his friends, who now control practically all of Russia's oil and gas production and industrial resources." The Panama Papers shed light on the fortune of Putin's old friend Sergei Roldugin, who has somehow amassed billions (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/31d99184-fa66-11e5-8f41-df5bda8beb40.html#axzz45EhJDkPr) as an obscure classical musician. Putin knows how easy it is for corrupt officials to live like kings without officially owning anything, because that's the way things worked in the good old days of the Soviet Union. In most of the world, this is known and more or less accepted as the way things work. But not traditionally in the US and in the developed countries of the West, where our governments have been structured, either from the beginning or over many years of civil service reforms, to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest. So when they are exposed, it's a major scandal. That's why they're pretty much ignoring (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/russian-state-media-ignore-panama-881317) the Panama Papers in Moscow, but in Iceland, crowds swarmed Raykjavik and forced the resignation (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/world/europe/panama-papers-iceland.html) of the prime minister. And that confronts us with a question: do we want Panama here? Because a couple of other names pop up (http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/05/hillary-clinton-ties-emerge-in-panama-papers/) in the Panama Papers, including those of a few well-known associates of Hillary Clinton: longtime Democratic Party fixers John and Tony Podesta and Clinton sycophant Sydney Blumenthal. And why not? Hillary Clinton has been up to her neck in crony deals from the very beginning. All the way back in 1978, for example, she indulged a sudden mania for trading cattle futures, from which she made just shy of $100,000 in less than a year—a lot more money back then than it is now, and a whole lot for a young couple like the Clintons. She has shown no interest in commodities trading since, which is surprising considering how successful she was at it. But maybe not so surprising when you consider that her trades back then were made under the guidance of an attorney who worked for a large company that just happened to be regulated by her husband. Gee, that almost looks like a bribe. That's the kind of thing that's all over the Panama Papers, and it's what Hillary Clinton has been doing forever. It's how the Clintons suddenly made $100 million in the first few years after leaving the White House, with nothing to offer the business world but their political connections. It's why the Clinton Foundation got massive donations (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html) from Russian businessmen with deals that required State Department approval. The problem is wider than Hillary Clinton, of course. Donald Trump has openly bragged (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-on-buying-politicians-when-i-call-they-kiss-my-ass/article/2580063) about his role in this system from the other end, as the businessman who buys the influence of politicians. Even Bernie Sanders, who has been making hay from the Panama Papers, advocates a much bigger role for government, particularly in regulating international trade—which is precisely the kind of playground for corruption revealed by the Panama Papers. Only Ted Cruz, despite playing footsie with protectionism during the South Carolina primary, advocates a smaller role for government in picking winners and losers in the economy. The fact is that the reason official corruption is rampant across much of the world is not just that they have insufficient civil service reforms. It's because their governments have vast, arbitrary powers. Hillary Clinton is one of the most visible reminders of this kind of wheeling and dealing among the global elites—and she presents us with the prospect of bringing the whole sordid system back from Panama and straight into the Oval Office.

Quote
In September, 1936, a reporter for the Associated Press watched the unveiling of a new kind of X-ray machine, said to be able to generate a million volts of power. The scientist operating the device was John G. Trump, a professor of engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Trump was working the controls and explaining how high-speed electrons ran along a porcelain tube to a "water-cooled gold target," when suddenly "two of the high-voltage sparks hit him squarely on the nose." And yet, according to the A.P. account (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9406E4DD1639EE3BBC4953DFB667838D629EDE), the direct strike caused him only "slight discomfort." Professor Trump told the reporter, "That's an advantage of this machine. It's completely grounded and those sparks can't kill you."
If only the same could be said of the Presidential campaign run by Professor Trump's nephew, Donald J. Trump. He is still uncomfortably close to victory, which is why there have been, lately, more serious attempts to figure out what he might do if, say, he had access to nuclear weapons. In his answers, he seldom sounds as ungrounded as when he invokes Professor Trump, the younger brother of his father, Fred. "My uncle used to tell me about nuclear before nuclear was nuclear," Trump said in one interview, "before nuclear" referring, perhaps, to the development of hydrogen bombs, rather than basic atomic bombs (which occurred when Donald was about six years old), or perhaps just to that netherworld where things wait until Trump judges them to be fashionable or flashy enough to exist. He mentions his uncle so often, and in such extravagant terms—"brilliant," "one of the top, top professors at M.I.T."—that it seems worth asking what the professor and his arcane knowledge mean to him. There are two different sets of answers, which might be put into the category of foreign and domestic.
But first, given Trump's tendency to wrap things in porcelain and gold and shoot sparks through them, it's worth noting that John Trump really does seem to have been a brilliant scientist. He was at M.I.T. for decades, and the X-ray machines he helped design "provided additional years of life to cancer patients throughout the world," as the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/26/us/john-trump-dies-engineer-was-78.html) put it in his obituary, in 1985. Trump was involved in radar research for the Allies in the Second World War, and in 1943 the F.B.I. had enough faith in his technical ability and his discretion to call him in when Nikola Tesla died in his room at the New Yorker Hotel, in Manhattan, raising the question of whether enemy agents might have had a chance to learn some of his secrets before the body was found. (One fear was that Tesla was working on a "death ray.") As Margaret Cheney and Robert Uth recount in "Tesla, Master of Lightning," Professor Trump examined Tesla's papers and equipment, and, in a written report, told the F.B.I. not to worry: Tesla's "thoughts and efforts during at least the past 15 years were primarily of a speculative, philosophical, and somewhat promotional character," but "did not include new, sound, workable principles or methods for realizing such results." Professor Trump may have neglected to make that sort of distinction clear to his nephew.
What is strange is that Donald Trump couples tales of how he received early, secret word from his uncle that nuclear weapons were dangerous and getting more so—"He would tell me, 'There are things that are happening that could be potentially so bad for the world in terms of weaponry," he told the Boston Globe—with a casual indifference about proliferation. In recent interviews, Trump has said that if countries like Japan and South Korea didn't want to pay America more for military protection, they should go and build their own nuclear weapons. When, in one seesawing exchange, Anderson Cooper (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/) asked if this meant he was for proliferation, Trump first disagreed, citing—naturally—the professor. "I hate nuclear more than any. My uncle was a professor was at M.I.T., used to tell me about nuclear," Trump said. But then he added,  "Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen, anyway. It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time . . . Now, wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?" (Actually, no.)
It's true that nuclear weapons are not that hard for a determined country to acquire, which is why the best counter-proliferation tool is diplomacy—that is, deal-making, which Trump prides himself on and yet, in this case, tosses aside. Last week, President Obama attended an international summit on nuclear weapons, in Washington, and said in a press conference that the representatives of other countries had told him they were worried about Trump, who, Obama said, "doesn't know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the Korean Peninsula or the world generally."
It gets stranger still when Trump invokes the bomb as a way to dismiss talk of climate change: "The only global warming I'm worried about is nuclear global warming." Was he thinking of the nuclear winter, but got it backward? Or of the heat generated when bombs, which his uncle told him would be nuclear even before there was nuclear, detonate? It may be, as is so often the case, that looking for the logic in Trump's comments is a pointless exercise. But they might provide an outline, at least, of a world view. When Trump told the Times that his uncle "would tell me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it's going to be a scary world," maybe his point was that the world is a scary place, and thus well-suited for a politician like him, who traffics in fear.
Then there is the domestic side. Trump brings up his Uncle John on subjects that have nothing to do with technology, such as when the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/) asked him about his tendency to use crude language and insult people. Trump said that that wouldn't continue when he was President—and why not? "My uncle, I would say my uncle was one of the brilliant people. He was at M.I.T. for thirty-five years. As a great scientist and engineer, actually more than anything else, Dr. John Trump—a great guy." That was followed not by a quote from his uncle about, say, the importance of treating people decently, but by the simple statement: "I'm an intelligent person." This is the professor's other role in the Trump rhetorical universe: as a sort of eugenic guarantor of intelligence and breeding.
It is a theme that comes up often. "I had a father who was successful," Trump told CNN (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1002/10/ctw.01.html), in 2010. "And, you know, I have a certain gene. I'm a gene believer. Hey, when you connect two race horses, you usually end up with a fast horse." In South Carolina, earlier this year, he noted, "Dr. John Trump at M.I.T.; good genes, very good genes, O.K., very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart." (Donald Trump was at Wharton as an undergraduate, after transferring from Fordham.) To the Boston Globe: "My father's brother was a brilliant man . . . We have very good genetics." And then on NBC (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-campaigns-effect-would-be-different-president-n514996), after telling Lester Holt that his uncle was a professor at M.I.T.: "I mean it's a good gene pool right there"—he pointed to his head—"I have to do what I have to do."
Looking at Trump's ideological assemblage, one can see certain common connectors—fatalism, fear, and a social-Darwinist's contempt for those who don't do quite as well as he and his family have. Being born rich isn't luck; it's something to congratulate oneself on when one looks in the mirror. The opposite is true of the "losers." It's part of what can make Trump feel both like a doomsayer and a smug child. In his rallies, he has taken to giving dramatic readings of the lyrics of a song, by Al Wilson, called "The Snake," which he presents as a parable about the dangers of immigration: a woman saw a beautiful snake at the side of the road, almost dead from the cold. She took it home, warmed it up, saved its life, and "clutched it to her bosom"—Trump always emphasizes that phrase—whereupon it bit her. As she died from the venom, she asked why. "You knew damn well I was a snake!" Trump shouts. The world is scary; people don't change. All a Trump can do is ride down an escalator to the lobby in Trump Tower, past the gold fittings and the waterfall, and say that he's running for President. Then come the sparks.

Quote from: Саша Радуловић on 11-04-2016, 16:02:42
ako je neka antitramp propaganda nemoj ni da postavljaš!

QuoteA World War has Begun: Break the Silence

by John Pilger


I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask, "Where is that?" If I offer a clue by referring to "Bikini", they say, "You mean the swimsuit."

Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 — the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.

Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated.  Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered "unsafe" on a Geiger counter.

Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called "Bravo". The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.

On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women's Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: "You, too, can have a bikini body."  A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different "bikini bodies"; each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.

Unlike the smiling woman in the magazine, all of them were impoverished: the victims and guinea pigs of a rapacious  superpower that is today more dangerous than ever.

I relate this experience as a warning and to interrupt a distraction that has consumed so many of us.  The founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this phenomenon as "the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions" of democratic societies. He called it an "invisible government".

How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.

In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make "the world free from nuclear weapons". People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was all fake. He was lying.

The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories.  Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.

A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it. General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, "Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable."

In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two — led by the United States — is taking place along Russia's western frontier.  Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.

Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union –  has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.

This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.

In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — next door to Russia – the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world's second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.

What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.


Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a "threat".  According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is "building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea".

What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called "freedom of navigation".

What does this really mean?  It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China.  Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.

I made a film called The War You Don't See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.

All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and  hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.

The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or  China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western "mainstream" — a Dan Rather equivalent, say –asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.

The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear -armed bombers.

This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and  across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.

In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China's access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist.  He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure.  That alone should arouse our scepticism.

Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.

According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is "unleashing the dark forces of violence" in the United States. Unleashing them?

This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.

No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America's wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as "a world substantially made over in [America's] own image".  The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn't want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted "exceptionalism" is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

As presidential  election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about "hope". And the drool goes on.

Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as "funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician", Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia.  He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons.  As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife – a murder made possible by American logistics – Clinton gloated over his death: "We came, we saw, he died."

One of Clinton's closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting "Hillary". This is the same Madeleine Albright  who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as "worth it".

Among Clinton's biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East.  She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women's candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.

A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as "identity politics" stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported — such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton;  such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.

Self absorption, a kind of "me-ism", became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signaled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality,  racism and sexism.

Today, the long sleep may be over. The young are stirring again. Gradually. The thousands in Britain who supported Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader are part of this awakening – as are those who rallied to support Senator Bernie Sanders.

In Britain last week, Jeremy Corbyn's closest ally, his shadow treasurer John McDonnell, committed a Labour government to pay off the debts of piratical banks and, in effect, to continue so-called austerity.

In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she's nominated. He, too, has voted for America's use of violence against countries when he thinks it's "right". He says Obama has done "a great job".

In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defence budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war.  There was no debate. Silence.

What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?

Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?

Quote
Perhaps the greatest compliment paid to me recently was from a Boston Globe columnist who remarked that I must really be Andy Kaufman (https://twitter.com/speechboy71/status/719730133435813888). It's a compliment, first because Kaufman was a genius, and also because his genius rested in the absurd; almost like voting for a presidential candidate being investigated by the FBI. In 2016, the most qualified candidate according to smart Democratic strategists holds negative favorability ratings (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating) in every single national poll. In 8 out of 10 national polls, Hillary Clinton's favorability ratings are negative by 15 points or more. According to recent CBS and NBS/WSJ polls, Clinton holds negative favorability ratings by 23 and 24 point margins (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating), respectively. A progressive said to "get things done" won't be able to win the White House with such negative national ratings.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders is the only leading candidate with positive favorability ratings (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating), and this has nothing to do with Clinton being more "vetted." Bernie doesn't need private servers and speaks to millions of people in open forums; Clinton is the antithesis of Vermont's Senator. It's not that people don't know about Bernie's controversies, it's that he simply doesn't have a penchant for controversy like his competitor. Unlike Clinton, Bernie Sanders can type an email without the FBI interviewing him or his associates.
Furthermore, I explain in my latest CNN International  (http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1571174)appearance that Sanders is the best chance to defeat Trump, especially since Clinton could face DOJ indictment. I also discuss on CNN New Day (https://www.facebook.com/hagoodman.journalist/posts/219016788450444?notif_t=like) that Clinton's white privilege allows her to circumvent almost any scandal, even issues that Bernie Sanders couldn't survive politically.
In terms of stark contrasts between Clinton and Sanders, you couldn't find a greater example of two candidates who epitomize opposing value systems. While Bernie Sanders has electrified millions of voters by simply focusing on progressive ideals, Hillary Clinton can't even disclose a speech transcript, or hold a fundraising event without static noise machines (http://gawker.com/clinton-donor-confirms-presence-of-static-noise-machine-1770511652).
I explain why Clinton can't disclose Wall Street speech transcripts in the following YouTube segment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ7x3TOrWB8). In addition, I urge all my critics within the Democratic establishment to subscribe to my YouTube channel  (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDB5XReUyyqt-FTNdkzFN-A)for comedy relief, because the fun it just beginning. Imagine the laughter after the FBI formally interviews Clinton and her top aides, and finally discloses the evidence found during a year-long investigation.
It's an honor to be viewed as Andy Kaufman by people who think Clinton is qualified to become president, in this bizarre world where glaring weaknesses are seen as strengths, and overt lies are viewed as simply smart politics. No doubt, when Clinton's national favorability rating soars from its current 56% (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating) to perhaps 70%, after the FBI formally discloses its findings (with or without indictments, the media firestorm will hurt favorability numbers), my thoughts might be viewed as less amusing by devout Hillary supporters.
The smartest people in the room, the same pragmatists who've completely forgotten about the horrors of Iraq and Afghanistan, are also saying Hillary Clinton is not only qualified to run this country, but also that the FBI isn't serious in their year-long investigation. The great Charles Pierce of Esquire calls it a "nothingburger," (http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a43713/hillary-email-nothingburger/) and although he's a wonderful writer, I doubt he'd be as nonchalant if he were the subject of a year-long FBI investigation. I just hope that the illustrious TBOGG from Raw Story, a person who relished in bending the truth regarding my writing (especially my supposed "love" for a certain Republican, something that isn't at all true), will write a piece correlating FBI investigations and presidential qualifications.
All these savvy and astute political pundits apparently know the meaning of pragmatism, yet they'd never vote for a Republican with Clinton's record on foreign policy, Wall Street ties, and inability to perform a speech or type an email without scandal. Of course, when you're more interested in money generated for "down-ticket Democrats" than being correct on Iraq, or opposing the TPP and Keystone XL, then allegiance to a political party overshadows principle.
When you hear pundits critiquing Bernie Sanders for not helping "down-ticket Democrats," simply watch my YouTube segment  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm2uVz64e-0)presenting the case for writing-in Bernie, if Clinton is the nominee. After two major wars, bailouts for banks that wrecked the economy, and racist campaign tactics (Clinton's 3 a. m. ad (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html), for example), voters have far greater concerns than loyalty to a political party. Democrats owe allegiance to voters, not the other way around, and Bernie Sanders has single-handedly altered this dynamic.
Nevertheless, Clinton and her top aides are scheduled to be interviewed soon, according to The Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html) in a piece titled Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom:

Feral prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton's private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases... No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear...
The meetings also are an indication that much of the investigators' background work - recovering deleted emails, understanding how the server operated and determining whether it was breached - is nearing completion.  "The interviews are critical to understand the volume of information they have accumulated," said James McJunkin, former head of the FBI's Washington field office.

Quote
    A Super PAC headed by a longtime Clinton operative is spending $1 million to hire online trolls to "correct" Bernie Sanders' supporters on social media.
Correct The Record (CTR), which is operated by Clinton attack dog and new owner of Blue Nation Review David Brock, launched a new initiative this week called "Barrier Breakers 2016" for the purpose of debating supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders — or "Bernie Bros," as they're referred to in Correct the Record's press official release (http://correctrecord.org/barrier-breakers-2016-a-project-of-correct-the-record/) — on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and other social media platforms.
The "Barrier Breakers" will also publicly thank Hillary Clinton's superdelegates and fans for supporting her campaign. The paid trolls are professional communicators, coming from public relations and media backgrounds.
"The task force staff's backgrounds are as diverse as the community they will be engaging with and include former reporters, bloggers, public affairs specialists, designers, Ready for Hillary alumni, and Hillary super fans who have led groups similar to those with which the task force will organize," CTR stated.
In a Reddit comments thread about CTR's new project, Reddit user and Sanders supporter /u/workythehand (https://www.reddit.com/user/workythehand), gave other commenters advice on how to identify and engage with one of David Brock's paid commenters:

The best tactic to use against "professionals" is to simply downvote and move on. The more you argue with them, the more likely people will read the astroturfer's posts.
Keep your eyes out for

very young accounts, repetition of phrasing and syntax (the same "Sanders only diagnoses the problem..." talking points, for instance) in every post, and rapid fire posting – 10+ comments in the span of a few minutes is a good indicator.

Quote
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz ended his presidential campaign Tuesday, eliminating the biggest impediment to Donald Trump's march to the Republican nomination.
The conservative tea party firebrand who cast himself as the only viable alternative to Trump announced his exit after a stinging defeat in Indiana's Republican primary.
"It appears that path has been foreclosed," Cruz told supporters in Indianapolis. "Together, we left it all on the field of Indiana. We gave it everything we've got, but the voters chose another path, and so with a heavy heart but with boundless optimism for the long-term future of our nation, we are suspending our campaign."
Cruz had already been mathematically eliminated from clinching the delegate majority in the state-by-state primary process, but hoped to force a contested national convention in July. That possibility ends Tuesday with the Texas senator's announcement.
Had he succeeded in his quest, Cruz would have been the first U.S. president of Hispanic descent, although he often downplayed his heritage on the campaign trail, instead, touting the need for tougher immigration laws, for a border wall along the border with Mexico, protecting gun rights, repealing President Barack Obama's health care law and instituting a flat tax.
Cruz argued he was the only true conservative in the race, building on his reputation in the Senate where he clashed both with Democrats and members of his own party over his ideological stubbornness. Cruz railed against what he called the "Washington cartel," trying to appeal to an electorate that is craving political outsiders.
But he ultimately couldn't compete with Trump's appeal among white, working class voters who were drawn to the billionaire's outlandish approach to politics.
Cruz's campaign placed its hopes on a data-driven effort to turn out conservative evangelical Christians who had opted out of recent presidential elections. Increasingly, he would modify his travel schedule to go where data showed there might be pockets of untapped supporters.
With the scale tipping increasingly in Trump's favor, he announced an extraordinary pact in April with his other rival, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, in which the two would divide their time and resources based on states where they were each poised to do better.
Days later, he prematurely named former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina as his running mate, hoping it would woo some of the female voters turned off by Trump's brash rhetoric.
Trump's appeal to evangelicals, though, and the New York billionaire's popularity with the broader Republican electorate, proved too much.
Cruz, 45, worked on George W. Bush's 2000 campaign and went on to serve five years as the top attorney for the state of Texas, arguing nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He parleyed that experience into an underdog run for the U.S. Senate, defeating the state's lieutenant governor in the primary before winning election in 2012.
He first burst on the national political landscape in 2013 when he led a 21-hour quasi-filibuster against President Barack Obama's health care law, reading his children Dr. Seuss's "Green Eggs and Ham" as a bedtime story via CSPAN during the marathon effort.
Cruz later teamed with the most-conservative members of the House to spark a government shutdown. It ultimately didn't accomplish any major Republican goals, but raised Cruz's national profile even more.
Cruz built a coalition of like-minded Republicans in Congress, as well as former presidential rivals — Fiorina, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, ex-Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Lindsey Graham among them — but won only minimal support from his Senate colleagues.
Cruz's campaign slogan of "Trusted" was tarnished after he was forced to apologize to Ben Carson for falsely suggesting the night of the Iowa caucuses that the retired neurosurgeon was dropping out of the race. Cruz also abruptly fired his communications director a day before the Nevada caucuses for spreading a false story about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio disparaging the Bible.
Trump nicknamed Cruz "Lyin' Ted," and derided him as "unstable," "crazy," "a maniac" and "sick."
Trump also questioned whether Cruz's birth in Canada disqualified him to run for president, frequently threatening to sue him over the issue. He never followed through, but several suits were filed, including in Cruz's home state of Texas.
   Cruz initially avoided attacking Trump, hoping that the former reality TV star's supporters would flow to him if Trump flamed out. As Trump's momentum grew with early primary victories, Cruz fought back and said Trump can't be trusted because of his past support for Democrats, abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
But it was too late.
Cruz was joined on stage with his parents, as well as by Fiorina and his wife, Heidi.
He made no mention of the Republican front-runner, vowing instead to continue his fight for liberty and for the Constitution. 

Quote
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Hillary Clinton lost West Virginia Tuesday night to rival Bernie Sanders, continuing her slog through the Democratic primary even as she spent the past week fending off attacks from presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
"Let me be as clear as I can be: We are in this campaign to win the Democratic nomination," Sanders told a crowd of thousands of supporters in Oregon Tuesday night. He predicted a string of wins in Kentucky, Oregon and the Dakotas over the next couple of weeks.

Clinton is fighting on two fronts. The former secretary of state has a near-lock on the Democratic nomination, but continues to lose states to Sanders, who hammers on her as a creature of Wall Street at his rallies that still draw thousands of supporters. Trump, meanwhile, now clear of any GOP rivals, has spent the past week directing all his considerable fire at her.
Trump's called her "Crooked Hillary" and resurrected his attack against Bill Clinton's past sexual relationships with women, painting Hillary as an "enabler" who wanted the women "destroyed." At a rally in Washington Sunday (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/08/trump_remember_this_when_you_see_hillarys_phony_paid-for-by-wall_street_ads.html), Trump said Hillary was playing the "woman card" to get support. "You know what? The women get it better than we do, folks. They get it better than we do. If she didn't play that card, she has nothing," he said.
Clinton gave several TV interviews the past week — more than usual for the candidate — and debuted her line of attack against Trump as a "loose cannon" who can't be trusted with the nation's security. She also rolled out a sweeping policy proposal in several stops in Kentucky on Tuesday, including a plan to provide federal grants and other assistance so that no family pays more than 10 percent of its income on childcare.
"Boy, do I think this presidential election has about the highest stakes that we've seen in a very long time," she told a fired-up crowd in Louisville Tuesday evening.
She playfully pushed back on Trump's "woman card" attacks. "I have never gotten a discount when I got to the cashier," she said. Clinton repeated her defense of Trump's woman card attack, saying that if caring about women's health means playing the woman card, then "deal me in!" The crowd shouted the words in unison with the candidate.
See the graphic: Where the Republican Party stands on Trump >>> (https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-the-republican-party-stands-on-trump-212357758.html)

Clinton didn't mention Sanders. The campaign's director of state and political engagement, Marlon Marshall, sent a fundraising email to supporters about the need to prepare for the general. The email included code visible to readers who received it on their phones. The coded message proclaimed, "Here comes the general."
But the Clinton campaign has been sucked back into the Democratic primary all the same, spending nearly $200,000 on TV ads in Kentucky's Democratic primary (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/09/hillary-clinton-resumes-buying-air-time-for-ads/), which takes place next week. The ad buy is the campaign's first since April 26, when Clinton swept several Mid-Atlantic states and pivoted toward the general election. But Sanders refused to get on board with that plan. He won Indiana last Tuesday, and has vowed to continue to fight for every last vote in the primary, even threatening to contest the Democratic convention in July.
The campaign celebrated Clinton's primary ad buy. "If you're looking for a sign that the Clinton campaign knows this primary is far from finished, here it is," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver wrote in an email to supporters earlier Tuesday.

Sanders would need to win every remaining state by unprecedented margins to beat Clinton in the delegate race at this point, making his chance of winning the nomination remote. But his continued wins pull Clinton away from the general election, where Trump is focusing all of his energy.
Slideshow: The campaign for Primary Day, May 10 >>> (https://www.yahoo.com/news/campaign-primary-day-may-10-120223500.html)
Trump recently seized on Clinton's town hall comments in March when she vowed to put coal miners out of business in favor of clean energy jobs. Last week, Clinton spent days on a tour through Appalachia apologizing for those remarks, and they most likely hurt her in West Virginia's primary.
Still, it's possible that by staying out of the general election fray, Clinton will appear to be taking the high road to voters, while Trump's more personal attacks may backfire, particularly among women. She continues to lead him in polls by wide margins in hypothetical head-to-head match ups.
Clinton hinted as much in an interview with reporters Monday (http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/clinton-to-trump-i-wont-run-an-ugly-race/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab8e&linkId=24306559). "I'm going to let him run his campaign however he chooses," she said. "I'm not running against him. He's doing a fine job of doing that himself. I'm running my campaign."

QuoteGoogle is "directly engaged" with the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, Wikileaks' Julian Assange stated during an international forum Tuesday.Speaking to the "New Era of Journalism: Farewell to Mainstream" symposium, hosted at Moscow's Rossiya Segodnya International Multimedia Press Center, the Wikileaks founder warned (http://sputniknews.com/world/20160607/1040951223/assange-clinton-google-deal.html) of the tech giant's close involvement with both Hillary as well as the Washington power structure.
"[Google] is directly engaged in Hillary Clinton's campaign," Assange said. "The chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, set up a company to run the digital component of Hillary Clinton's campaign."
As reported by Quartz (http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/) in late 2015, an under-the-radar startup known as "The Groundwork (http://thegroundwork.com/)" was funded by Schmidt "to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election."
By utilizing "data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs," The Groundwork could significantly boost Clinton's exposure.
"Groundwork has been tasked with building the technological infrastructure to ingest massive amounts of information about voters, and develop tools that will help the campaign target them for fundraising, advertising, outreach, and get-out-the-vote efforts," the article states.
Assange went on to further build his case by noting the prevalence of Google power players that emerged in the former secretary of state's emails as well.
"We should understand that Google... is intensely aligned with U.S. exceptionalism... personally at the top aligned with Hillary Clinton's election campaign and almost certainly once Hillary Clinton becomes president, those people in Google, like Jared Cohen, will be placed into positions around the new Clinton presidency..."
Cohen, the founder of "Google Ideas," a foreign policy-focused think tank now known as "Jigsaw," was revealed in the email release to be collaborating with Clinton and media outlet Al Jazeera in an attempt to facilitate regime change in Syria.
"Please keep close hold, but my team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from," Cohen wrote (https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12166).
"Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition."
Google's dominance over digital information, according to senior research psychologists, could even sway the election (http://fortune.com/2015/08/23/research-google-rig-election/) – a disturbing premise given the tech juggernaut's proclivity for Clinton.
"Through five experiments in two countries, they found that biased rankings in search results can shift the opinions of undecided voters by 20% or more, sometimes even reaching as high as 80% in some demographic groups," writes Fortune's Michael Addady. "If Google tweaks its algorithm to show more positive search results for a candidate, the researchers say, the searcher may form a more positive opinion of him or her."
Controlling the majority of the world's smart phones, Assange adds, raises even more serious concerns in light of the company's growing and monopolistic influence.
"Google controls 80 percent of the smart phone market through its control of Android and if you control the device itself – that people use to read – then anything that they connect to through that device you have control over as well."
Although the tech empire's political leanings are relatively well known, its ties to power are most obvious not in Clinton but in current President Barack Obama.
"Google has gotten into bed with the Obama administration in a very significant way," Assange stated. "It is the company that visits the White House more than any other – averaged once per week in the last 4 years."
As noted by The Intercept's David Dayen in April, between "January 2009 and October 2015, Google staffers gathered at the White House on 427 separate occasions."
"All told, 182 White House employees and 169 Google employees attended the meetings, with participation from almost every domestic policy and national security player in the West Wing," Dayen writes (https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/googles-remarkably-close-relationship-with-the-obama-white-house-in-two-charts/).
Wikileaks, which has been targeted by Clinton continually for its release of sensitive documents, remains heavily engaged in the 2016 election – most notably with its searchable database (https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/) archive for over 30,000 emails sent to and from Clinton's private email server.

QuoteРасисти не заваравају себе већ отварају очи свима који симпатишу ратног злочинца Обаму.

Quote from: T2 on 10-06-2016, 13:28:56
Уместо да коментаришеш политичке одлуке и злочине до којих та политика доводи, ти се пецаш на Обамину боју коже.  :lol:

Постоје и букачке "расистичке" организације које немају ништа са расизмом већ својим деловањем штете, јер расизам је љубав према својој раси а не мржња према другим расама.

QuoteЗначи јасно ти је да је Обама само лутак-шутак са црном бојом коже који је постављен да би промовисао расно мешање и геноцид над белом расом?

Quote from: T2 on 10-06-2016, 13:51:53
Иначе, кад се већ ватате за биологију, онда треба да се зна да припадник једне расе не може дати крв припаднику друге расе, без обзира што имају исту крвну групу.
Једноставно не постоји подударност, долази до одбацивања,  јер су каснија истраживања доказала да нпр. црнци имају другачија крвна зрнца.

QuoteThere is a huge misconception about this blood thing and since we get blood often, it's important for us to sort out the truth from fallacy.MYTH: Black people should accept blood transfusions only from other Africans/African-Americans because of the increased risk of adverse reaction from blood of other races...after all, with bone marrow transplants (which makes the blood), you do need a perfect racial match, so therefore blood needs a perfect racial match as well.Bone marrow and blood are not the same thing in fact, as you know, they are completely different. Bone marrow matching is based on HLA antigens. A bone marrow transplant is like an organ transplant. These are more complicated to test for and more complicated to find donors for because HLA antigens are gotten from DNA. Genetically, my HLA type would not be the same as a white person, because it's kinda like DNA. My bone marrow wouldn't even match another random person with dark skin: but could only match a sibling,  offspring...or maybe someone from my village. This is why it's so difficult and people are on the list for YEARS and can't find donors, especially interracial patients.
Regular blood matching is usually a broader type of matching. There are only 4 possibilities, your blood type is either A, B, O or AB.(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsicklecellwarriors.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fwp-special-textboxes%2Fimages%2Falert-b.png&hash=967ac4e0054610ecefcb9b121dc90c2bf4084d78)The only possible thing that distinguishes your blood from someone else in your blood type are proteins called antigens or antibodies. There are so many antigens and antibodies. It is different from PERSON to PERSON, irrespective of race. However, there are certain antigens that are specific to black people, Jewish people, Latin American people, or white people. There are different antigens specific to all people born in North America, that might not be in people born in Australia.
For example; the Dossy antigen is ABSENT in Africans living in Africa; but PRESENT in Blacks living in the USA. White people have the presence of Dossy A or Dossy B. With black people originating predominantly in tropical areas, the malaria parasite attacks the Dossy Antigen, so Africans born and living in Africa genetically developed the immune response of getting rid of the Dossy Antigen. Dossy is a clinically significant antigen because if you give the blood of a white person to a black person, they will get Dossy A or Dossy B. As a result, African Americans mostly have Dossy in their bloodstream whereas straight Africans do not.  I live in Oregon, and it's predominantly a white population, so I've gotten tons of 'white' blood. This means that although I'm straight African, I also do have Dossy A and Dossy B antigens because I've gotten so many blood transfusions.(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsicklecellwarriors.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fwp-special-textboxes%2Fimages%2Falert-b.png&hash=967ac4e0054610ecefcb9b121dc90c2bf4084d78)If you get a transfusion and you are given an antigen that you do not have, your immune system will create antibodies to take out the foreign antigens or absorb them into your system. This makes your blood type more and more unique and a great collection of antibodies and antigens. As a result, those that get chronic blood transfusions have several antigens and antibodies that can make it difficult to get a 'standard' match.The point is this: On the blood in the laboratory, they don't write," this is White blood" or this is "Black blood". Blood is blood, it is a rare, beautiful commodity that should be graciously accepted from the wonderful donors who decided to let a random person stick a big needle into them every couple of months to give the gift of life to us. Blood is treated the same, and processed the same: the Red Cross doesn't look to see whether the person is Black or White. The only reason it is taking so long to match your blood is as a result of having gotten multiple blood transfusions, your body has developed multiple antigens and antibodies.
In the blood bank, there is no racial consideration, the choice is based strictly and solely on your blood type. So settle down, relax and breathe easy. Getting 'white' blood is not going to kill you but only make you stronger.

Quote from: T2 on 10-06-2016, 13:41:40

Па него шта је расизам него љубав према својој раси?

QuoteРасизам се односи на веровања и праксу код којих се сматра да постоје урођене и карактеристичне разлике између одређених група људских (https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA) бића које се могу мерити хијерархијски. Последица расизма је социјална (https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BC), политичка (https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0) и економска (https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0) предност једне групе људи у односу на другу.

Quote from: Dybuk on 10-06-2016, 15:12:44
neplacena

Quote from: T2 on 10-06-2016, 19:01:10

Да ли ви господине Крљићу можете да ми покажете нешто конкретно, попут неког видео снимка на коме је камером, у присуству сведока, забележена трансфузија крви, у којој је даваоц особа једне расе, а примаоц особа друге расе?

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 10-06-2016, 14:04:51
Dakle, "koje se mogu meriti hijerarhijski". Dakle, rasizam je suprematistička ideja. Ljubav ne podrazumeva da smatram da je predmet moje ljubavi "objektivno" superioran u odnosu na druge predmete, jelte.

Quote from: Palmer Eldrič on 11-06-2016, 12:49:04
E sad da li ovaj zoopeting rade i crnci ja ne znam, ali sam lično prisustvovao ovome...

Quote from: Palmer Eldrič on 11-06-2016, 12:49:04
Ali reći da crnci rade protivprirodni blud, a belci ne je baš onako neiskusno trolovanje od strane T(rol)2.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-06-2016, 18:08:46
Već sam rekao da mi je žao što insistiraš na besmislenim tezama koje su pre mnogo vremena dokazane kao besmislene. Da je bar smešno, pa da se čovek, jelte, sprda sa celom pričom. Ovako kako jeste, ovo je kao da neko insistira da je genetsko nasleđivanje izmišljotina jer ne postoji snimak kako majka koja ima brkatog muža rađa brkato dete  :cry:

Quote from: mac on 11-06-2016, 20:47:54
Problem je što je nama prezahtevno da opovrgavamo tu veliku laz.

Quote from: Милош Бојанић on 11-06-2016, 20:57:39
Онај Обама, што му мама бјелкиња, ја не знам како је уопште жив!

Quote from: ridiculus on 11-06-2016, 21:24:34
rekao bih da se može dokazati da je mešanje rasa najbolje za gene - u smislu otpornosti organizma na različite uslove. I bolesti. Tako je kod pasa

Quote from: mac on 11-06-2016, 20:47:54
A koje su posledice? To se ne vidi iz T2 komentara, jer je to sve laž. Problem je što je nama prezahtevno da opovrgavamo tu veliku laž.

Quote from: Dybuk on 11-06-2016, 21:58:12
ridiculusa ne dirati, molim!!!

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-06-2016, 21:59:39

Quote from: mac on 11-06-2016, 20:47:54
A koje su posledice? To se ne vidi iz T2 komentara, jer je to sve laž. Problem je što je nama prezahtevno da opovrgavamo tu veliku laž.

Još gore, opovrgli smo je jednim linkom a on nastavlja sa sprdnjom i odvlači diskusiju na nivo obdaništa.

Quote from: Милош Бојанић on 11-06-2016, 22:31:16
Ридикулинкин је посебан комад будале.

Quote from: T2 on 11-06-2016, 22:42:42

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-06-2016, 21:59:39

Quote from: mac on 11-06-2016, 20:47:54
A koje su posledice? To se ne vidi iz T2 komentara, jer je to sve laž. Problem je što je nama prezahtevno da opovrgavamo tu veliku laž.

Još gore, opovrgli smo je jednim linkom a on nastavlja sa sprdnjom i odvlači diskusiju na nivo obdaništa.

Нисте оповргли ништа тим линком.
Да се не понављам и да по ко зна који пут понављам зашто нисте, али ми је најсменије што си узео наводни мит бастер, а оно ни б од бастера.
Ако имаш видео -  приложи га, ако немаш видео - онда ја имам предлог.
Ево ти нађи једног обојеног, а ја ћу да дајем крв коју ће он после да прими.
Ако преживи, плаћам клопу теби, а обојеном ти плаћаш; ако не преживи - ти га сарањујеш о свом трошку и ти читаш или молитву за упокојење или јасин суру за рахметли мује.
:lol:

Quote from: ridiculus on 12-06-2016, 00:00:28
Briga me za trolovanje, uspešno ili neuspešno, maestralno ili amatersko, ako druga kultura trpi.

Quote from: ridiculus on 12-06-2016, 01:43:28
Ne vidim kako možeš da rešiš taj problem učestvovanjem...

Quote from: ridiculus on 12-06-2016, 00:34:00
A to može da se tumači i kao moj stav šta je vredno rasprave a šta ne?

Quote from: ridiculus on 12-06-2016, 01:43:28
Nisu deca baš toliki idioti kao što nekoliko vas misli...

Quote from: ridiculus on 11-06-2016, 21:24:34
Tako je kod pasa, a tako je i kod ljudi.

Quote from: ridiculus on 11-06-2016, 21:40:49
"Tako je kod bogova, i tako je i kod ljudi."

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-06-2016, 23:31:56
Mene stvarno brine da će ovo neko naivan da pročita i da pomisli da se krv stvarno daje i prima direktno. Još gore, da pomisli da bilo koja bela osoba može da da krv bilo kojoj beloj zato što su bele i da primalac nije ni u kakvom riziku. Ne ugrožavajmo naivne, prestanimo sa ovim glupiranjem.

Quote from: T2 on 11-06-2016, 16:18:02
Међутим, у случају о ком говоримо - ја уопште не мислим на "претакање црева" како сте ви то сликовито описали.
Не постоји нити један снимак у коме се види како особа једне расе даје крв, коју затим прима особа друге расе.

Quote from: T2 on 11-06-2016, 19:09:30
Врећице са крвљу су уредно обележене, зна се која се крвна група крви налази у врећици, па ти не треба никакав систем да већ обележену врећицу додатно обележиш ознаком расе.
Ето како не долази до смрти приликом трансфузије, јер како нико не даје погрешну крвну групу другој крвној групи, тако нико не меша крв једне расе са крвљу друге расе.

Quote from: T2 on 11-06-2016, 22:42:42
Ево ти нађи једног обојеног, а ја ћу да дајем крв коју ће он после да прими.
Ако преживи, плаћам клопу теби, а обојеном ти плаћаш; ако не преживи - ти га сарањујеш о свом трошку и ти читаш или молитву за упокојење или јасин суру за рахметли мује.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 12-06-2016, 08:01:18
dovoljan je jedan učesnik ove diskusije koji se hvata za sitan detalj rasprave i onda se opsesivno bavi njime iako nije ni malo bitan za tu raspravu.

Quote from: Милош Бојанић on 11-06-2016, 23:03:56
Мајсторе глупости, ако оплођавањем можеш сиду да добијеш онда вала од црнца можеш и думреш. Рећи да не можеш само крв да размјењујеш а сперму можеш хит је ретардираности.

Quote from: T2 on 10-06-2016, 13:51:53
Иначе, кад се већ ватате за биологију, онда треба да се зна да припадник једне расе не може дати крв припаднику друге расе, без обзира што имају исту крвну групу.
Једноставно не постоји подударност, долази до одбацивања,  јер су каснија истраживања доказала да нпр. црнци имају другачија крвна зрнца.
Нисмо исти, и немојте да потурате биологију као доказ да смо сви исти, јер вам биологија, у овом случају, никако не иде у прилог.

Quote from: Милош Бојанић on 12-06-2016, 00:21:41
ја морам да образлажем зашто неком бјелачком супрематисти који тврди нешто о доминацији Аријеваца у Индији

QuoteАл' говори Блажена Марија:
"А мој брате, Громовник Илија!
"Како не ћу сузе прољевати,
"Кад ја идем из земље Инђије,
"Из Инђије из земље проклете?
"У Инђији тешко безакоње:
"Не поштује млађи старијега,
"Не слушају ђеца родитеља;
"Родитељи пород погазили,
"Црн им био образ на дивану
"Пред самијем Богом истинијем!
"Кум свог кума на судове ћера,
"И доведе лажљиве свједоке
"И без вјере и без чисте душе,
"И оглоби кума вјенчанога,
"Вјенчанога или крштенога;
"А брат брата на мејдан зазива;
"Ђевер снаси о срамоти ради,
"А брат сестру сестром не дозива."

Quote from: Милош Бојанић on 12-06-2016, 00:21:41ја поручујем да му Аријевци опште са животињама

Quote from: Милош Бојанић on 12-06-2016, 00:21:41маестрално троловање

Quote from: Милош Бојанић on 11-06-2016, 23:21:19
линкин је ту само духовна метафора, наиме, кад неко можда и није тотално глуп, ал просто није научио да размишља, и онда налапрда нешто небитно, то је "линкин"

Quote from: Dybuk on 13-06-2016, 12:17:41
Meni ne bi bilo mrsko da primim

Quote from: Trol2Не помињи Бобаново име улудо.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 13-06-2016, 12:13:25
Inače, kad ga već pominjemo, primećuje se njegovo odsustvo ovde

Quote from: Dybuk on 13-06-2016, 12:28:20

Quote from: Trol2Не помињи Бобаново име улудо.

Boban, Boban, Boban!!!

8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 13-06-2016, 12:36:02
Taj rad. Odrasli smo ljudi.

Quote from: Josephine on 13-06-2016, 12:36:59


Verujem, Meho, da je vreme da prestaneš da diskutuješ sa T2 i da podstičeš njegov destruktivni uticaj na forum (jer to i tebe čini destruktivnim), odnosno - vreme je da svi prestanu da mu repliciraju. Čovek se koristi vašim replikama da intenzivira trolovanje od samog početka. Masovni ignor, takvim trolovima je to najveća kazna. Veća od banovanja.

Quote from: Dybuk on 13-06-2016, 12:45:26
Trol 2

Uopste ne sumnjam da mozes da navedes sta je ko pisao u bilo kom trenutku na forumu, u poslednjih deset godina.

jer si creepy stalker koji u svoje tefterce belezi ko, sta, kako kome i nemas izgleda drugog posla u zivotu. jezivo.

Quote from: Србин Хамза on 13-06-2016, 12:29:25
Јбт линкине, колико налога имаш, Т2, трт мрт, пат реми, можда и патак пашко и ридикули, шта бре радиш човјече...

Quote from: Србин Хамза on 13-06-2016, 21:05:56
линкине, ако мислиш да мени није познато твоје напаствовање неких форумашица и још нека кривична дјела која си починио на форуму

Quote from: Josephine on 13-06-2016, 12:36:59

...sada kada je počeo da radi za Orfelin, prešao je u otvoreni napad i zato je banovan. Nema osobe koja ga zbog takvog ponašanja i takve izdaje ne bi banovala i uklonila iz vidokruga, ma kakav da je stručnjak. U Srbiji nije teško biti stručnjak, ali je teško biti kulturan, etičan, civilizovan i poštovati druge.

Quote from: Son of Man on 13-06-2016, 21:21:26
ali džaba i to kad uvek ima pratnju tj. tu svitu fanova koje vodi okolo naokolo sa sobom i koji su ko članovi neke sekte. Zaista ne kapiram kako neko toliko može da se loži na nekoga iako ga zna samo iz viđenja i iz ta dva romana što je napisao, šta im je to uradio pobogu? Koja je to taktika manipulacije i kupovine ljudi da ih do te mere pridobiješ za sebe? Nemam ideju zaista, u svakom slučaju se radi o jako zajebanom igraču, nema šta.

Quotejer je po običaju pustio krila

QuoteThe whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.

Quote from: Mileva on 14-04-2015, 17:28:49
Pratite li sta se desava?

QuoteEighteen years ago, then Texas Gov. Ann Richards charmed the Democratic Party from the 1988 convention podium, as she taunted the new Republican nominee.
"Poor George, he can't help it," she drawled about George H.W. Bush, "he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
On Tuesday night, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Ann's daughter, chided another Republican nominee for what she called his "deeply disturbing worldview."
"Donald Trump has called women 'fat pigs' and 'dogs'," she said. "He wants to punish women for having abortions. And he says pregnancy is 'an inconvenience' for a woman's employer. Well, Mr. Trump, come this November, women are going to be a lot more than an inconvenience. Women are going to be the reason you're not elected to be president."


She spoke of Trump's opposition to services that Planned Parenthood provides directly, citing his pledge "to appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade" and to cut funding that provides cancer screening and birth control. And Richards took aim at Trump's silence or criticism on women's issues in general: equal pay, affordable child care, paid family leave.
And she also remembered her mother. "Tonight, we are closer than ever to putting a woman in the White House," she said. "And I can almost hear mom saying, 'Well, it sure took y'all long enough."

QuoteThe hacker who claims to have stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-u-s-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump.html) and provided them to WikiLeaks is actually an agent of the Russian government and part of an orchestrated attempt to influence U.S. media coverage surrounding the presidential election, a security research group concluded on Tuesday.The researchers, at Arlington, Va.-based ThreatConnect, traced the self-described Romanian hacker Guccifer 2.0 back to an Internet server in Russia (https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/) and to a digital address that has been linked in the past to Russian online scams. Far from being a singly, sophisticated hacker, Guccifer 2.0 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/21/is-this-the-secret-dnc-file-on-hillary-clinton.html) is more likely a collection of people from the propaganda arm of the Russian government meant to deflect attention away from Moscow as the force behind the DNC hacks and leaks of emails, the researchers found.ThreatConnect is the first known group of experts to link the self-proclaimed hacker to a Russian operation, amidst an ongoing FBI investigation (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-u-s-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump.html) and a presidential campaign rocked by the release of DNC emails that have embarrassed senior party leaders and inflamed intraparty tensions turning the Democratic National Convention. The emails revealed that party insiders plotted ways to undermine Sen. Bernie Sanders' presidential bid.
"These are bureaucrats, not sophisticated hackers," Rich Barger, ThreatConnect's chief intelligence officer, told The Daily Beast. In blog posts and in interviews with journalists, Barger said, Guccifer 2.0 has made inconsistent remarks and given a version of how he penetrated the DNC networks that technically don't make sense. (https://www.threatconnect.com/reassesing-guccifer-2-0-recent-claims/) For instance, the hacker claims to have used a software flaw that didn't exist until December 2015 in order to break into the DNC networks last summer.In an interview with Motherboard in June, the hacker also refused to speak in Romanian (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview), another indication that he wasn't who he claimed to be.ThreatConnect also found that Guccifer 2.0 was attempting to mask his true location, in Russia, by communicating through an Internet service based in France. Such masking is not uncommon in government-sponsored operations, nor is it particularly difficult to accomplish.

The researchers concluded that Guccifer 2.0 is actually an "apparition created under a hasty Russian [denial and deception] campaign" (https://www.threatconnect.com/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/) to influence political events in the U.S. (The news site Vocativ was the first to report on these conclusions (http://www.vocativ.com/343010/guccifer-2-0-dnc-hack/?_ga=1.123425675.1251825798.1469552534), and Vocativ reporter Kevin Collier (https://twitter.com/kevincollier/status/757945580639387648) supplied some data to the researchers.)
"Maintaining a ruse of this nature within both the physical and virtual domains requires believable and verifiable events which do not contradict one another. That is not the case here," the researchers wrote in a blog post. By tracing Guccifer 2.0's Internet infrastructure, the researchers concluded he—or the group—is "a Russia-controlled platform that can act as a censored hacktivist. Moscow determines what Guccifer 2.0 shares and thus can attempt to selectively impact media coverage, and potentially the election, in a way that ultimately benefits their national objectives."
That finding matches the political motive (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-u-s-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump.html) that U.S. officials told The Daily Beast they have seen in Russia's hacking of the DNC. The FBI said on Monday that it was investigating the breach, which a growing number within the Obama administration believe was designed to embarrass Democrats, exacerbate tensions between Hillary Clinton and her former rival Bernie Sanders—as well as his voters—and ultimately to give a boost to Republican nominee Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, President Obama said that while the FBI is investigating (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dnc-hack-russia-226246), "experts have attributed this to the Russians" and that it was "possible" the leak was designed to help the Trump campaign.

Researchers from cyber security company CrowdStrike have publicly attributed the DNC breach to the work of two known Russian government hacker groups that have also targeted U.S. government agencies, the White House, and American universities. The tactics and techniques in those campaigns match up with forensic evidence gathered from the DNC breach.ThreatConnect's findings seem to underscore the extent to which the Russian government, at least initially, wanted to obscure its role in a so-called active measures campaign designed to cause mischief in the U.S. election, said Barger, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst.But it's not clear where in the Russian government, or its sphere of influence, Guccifer 2.0 sits.WikiLeaks has not identified its source for the DNC emails, even though Guccifer 2.0 claims to have provided them. A representative of the anti-secrecy organization told The Daily Beast on Monday that they were "very pleased with this great scoop in data journalism," referring to the publication of the DNC emails. "Journalists at many outlets and the general public are all pitching in to understand this wonderful dataset which describes how the DNC really works. Our publication of leaked DNC emails and the many DNC hacks over the last two years are separate incidents and should not be conflated."

WikiLeaks didn't respond to Guccifer 2.0's claims or to accusations from U.S. officials in recent days that the Russian government orchestrated the leak to the group.In a Skype interview Monday with NBC News, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange rejected suggestions that the Russians were behind the DNC hack, saying the party's server security was so weak, it could have been hacked by various groups."The emails that we have released are different sets of documents to the documents of those [that] people have analyzed," he told NBC's Richard Engel. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wikileaks-julian-assange-no-proof-hacked-dnc-emails-came-russia-n616541)

Quote from: lilit on 29-07-2016, 15:31:33
bljakpink

(https://s31.postimg.org/cammomjln/i2rjb8.jpg)

QuoteDonald Trump has pledged to crack down on Internet pornography via corporate partnerships and possibly establishing a federal commission on the harmful effects of pornography, a nonprofit said Monday.
While it appears to be coincidental, Trump's pledge comes a day after the New York Post's Sunday edition included a full-page nude photo of Melania Trump, his wife, on its cover.
Enough is Enough, a nonprofit dedicated to confronting online pornography, child pornography, child stalking and sexual predation, published Trump's signed pledge (http://enough.org/objects/EIE-prespledge-signedtrump.pdf) on Monday. Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton refused to sign the pledge, Enough is Enough said, though her campaign told EiE that she supported its goals. 
The pledge Trump signed calls for preventing the sexual exploitation of children, better enforcing Internet obscenity laws, and recognizing that exposure to Internet porn is "deforming the sexual development of younger viewers."
"Preventing the sexual exploitation of youth online requires a multi-faceted holistic strategy with a shared responsibility between the public, industry, and government," Donna Rice Hughes, the chief executive of Enough is Enough, said in a statement. "The need for aggressive enforcement of existing laws and adequate funding for Law Enforcement to do the job is long overdue. For nearly two decades, bi-partisan government commissions, task forces, Internet safety groups, and researchers, who have recognized the significant risks associated with unfettered Internet access by youth, and have called upon the government and law enforcement to take aggressive action."   
Why this matters: Pornography has been a wedge issue between conservatives and liberals for years. The Internet has made it simple to gain access to a vast variety of information, and there is no widely adopted mechanism for tracking or filtering illegal activities or images of those activities online. Trump appears to support the creation and implementation of those tools.
What Trump's pledge entails  The five-point pledge calls for Trump and any other signee to agree to "aggressively enforce" existing federal laws to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online, including appointing an Attorney General who will make prosecuting those laws a "top priority."
Other points include "serious consideration" of a Presidential Commission to examine the "harmful public impact of Internet pornography on youth, families, and the American culture." Finally, the pledge commits to establishing corporate partnerships to implement viable technology tools and solutions to reduce the exploitation of children online.     Trump's Twitter account, an unfiltered commentary on his thoughts of the day, hadn't mentioned the pledge at press time on Monday. Neither had Trump's Facebook account. Clinton's campaign could not be immediately reached for comment.
On Sunday, the New York Post published a nude photo (http://nypost.com/cover/july-31-2016/) of Trump's wife, Melania Trump, on its Sunday cover. Jason Miller, a senior communications adviser for the Trump campaign, appeared on CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/31/media/donald-trump-melania-new-york-post/index.html) and called the photos "a celebration of the human body as art."
"There's nothing to be embarrassed about," Miller said. "She's a beautiful woman."

QuoteOn Monday night at the Republican National Convention, Melania Trump, the wife of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, delivered a speech that contained lines that mimic a speech delivered by Michelle Obama as she endorsed her husband eight years ago at the Democratic National Convention. Roughly, two paragraphs, or one minute of Trump's speech, closely, almost verbatim resembled ones delivered by Obama.

Many have blamed the apparent act of plagiarism on the Trump campaign, which apparently decided not to use a speech drafted by two former speechwriters for President George W. Bush.

Melania Trump told NBC's Matt Lauer that she had written the speech herself. If we take her at her word, then it is helpful to look at the post-communist educational system that Melania experienced growing up in Slovenia. In that system, what is typically considered plagiarism or cheating was exceedingly common and even encouraged.

(For the record, Melania Trump has made no statements since delivering the speech, but the Trump campaign has denied the accusations of plagiarism, saying the similarity of phrasing was due to common themes.)

Although she did not complete her degree from the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, she still obtained most of her education in the immediate aftermath of the fall of communism in Eastern Europe. The post-communist educational system at that time was a place where the line between original work and plagiarism was often hard to discern and the issue of intellectual ownership was never discussed.

Scholars who study plagiarism associate it with the dominant mode of learning. Learning via rote memorization, rather than the critical questioning of ideas, is more likely to lead people to appropriate others' intellectual work. If memorization is how academic performance is judged, students will do better when they merely replicate what they have learned.

Memorization was an important component of education in post-communist Europe. This was a legacy of communism, when the dominant subjects — Marxist Ideology, The Foundations of Leninism, The Fundamentals of Socialist Economics, and so on — could not be criticized in a classroom setting without raising the suspicions of the authoritarian secret police.

After the fall of communism in 1989, subjects like Marxism faded from curriculums, but the educational model developed under communism persisted. There was much memorization of historical facts and minimal debate about various theories. In part this was because the faculty and teachers were largely the same as during communism.

Another important element of the post-communist educational experience was the prevalence and acceptance of cheating. My own admissions exam to Warsaw University in Poland is a good example.

Roughly 200 students were packed into a lecture hall on Krakowskie Przedmiescie, the university's main campus. We had been assigned to one of three groups, each taking a different version of the exam. This meaning that I was answering a different set of questions than the students on my left and right. Moreover, 20 faculty and teaching assistants and faculty were proctoring the exam. In this context, cheating would risk your chance of getting into the university. But it was common. If someone asked for an answer, people would give it to them. My entrance exam was not an exception.

The very fact that college entrance exams were called for, merely two months after the standard test taken upon graduation from high school — the Polish equivalent of the SAT — suggests how widespread cheating was. Cheating on those high school exams was so prevalent that teachers themselves would frequently pass on the correct answers to their students to increase the students' chances of college admission.

How did does such a norm set in? First, cheaters weren't called "cheaters." They were called "borrowers" and were considered street-smart. Neglecting to study for an exam but passing it by whatever means possible was considered a greater achievement than passing the exam after careful studying the material. In fact, it was those who reported cheating who were ostracized and considered to be "collaborators."

Monkey Cage newsletter
Commentary on political science and political issues.
Sign up
I left Eastern Europe more than 15 years ago, but I am skeptical that much is different. Culture changes slowly. As Grigore Pop-Eleches and Joshua Tucker argue,"You can take the boy out of Eastern Europe, but you cannot take Eastern Europe out of the boy."

So the potential to cheat remains great even now. A friend who graduated from my university seven years after me described how her cohort had their final theses scanned through anti-plagiarism software that only scans for content appropriated from the Internet. It cannot detect plagiarism of material available only in hard copy or not on the Internet.

Nor can it check for appropriated content that has been translated. For years now a popular format of courses at Polish universities is the Konwersatorium. The idea is to assign readings in a foreign language, typically German or English, and have classroom discussions and presentations on the readings, translated into Polish. Notes from these courses can easily wind up in summaries for thesis preparation and eventually land in the thesis itself. This form of plagiarism is made possible if not encouraged by the mode of learning.

To be clear, the provenance of the plagiarized portions of Melania Trump's speech remain unclear. Perhaps she plagiarized them directly, or perhaps the responsibility lies with Donald Trump's campaign staff. But if Trump herself was responsible, we can begin to understand the origins of the problem by looking at post-communist education. If plagiarizing is seen as "borrowing" and not cheating, then it makes the striking parallels between Melania's and Michelle Obama's speeches all the more understandable.

QuoteDear Editors,

We, the undersigned scholars, write this letter in response to the commentary by Monika Nalepa entitled "Melania Trump and the Culture of Cheating in Eastern European Schools" which appeared in the Monkey Cage blog on July 20th. Dr. Nalepa's text was not only appalling and prejudiced, but also poorly researched and completely unsubstantiated. Frankly, we wonder what purpose it served at all. Given the current political climate in the US, what would compel the Washington Post to publish a text which traces the origins of Melania Trump's egregious plagiarism to former socialist regimes? A text that makes an argument by calling on tired sweeping generalizations about a whole region of diverse countries, and insinuates that millions of people in Eastern Europe are backward, ignorant, and prone to cheating?

Sadly, we do understand the broad popular appeal of Dr. Nalepa's "insider" analysis meant to shed light on the reasons for Melania Trump's indiscretion. They resonate with her assumed readership not because they are new or the result of painstaking research into historical trajectories of education in particular countries or regions of Eastern Europe, but because they satisfy the very expectations of this audience. More than clickbait, Dr. Nalepa's insights sound "so true" because they combine some truth — the elements of a lived reality (attending schools in one of the countries of Eastern Europe) — with caricature-like tropes straight out of the McCarthy playbook. After reading Dr. Nalepa's musings, dozens of countries, respective histories, and geo-political and socio-political relations fade into one blurry, ahistorical and ageographical cultural no-place of "post-communist Europe." So we are left in shock, especially considering Dr. Nalepa's academic credentials and affiliations. We ask you to carefully consider our critique below.

1.

Let's start with the historical, geopolitical and cultural inaccuracies offered in the text. The first is Dr. Nalepa's faulty periodization. She writes "it is helpful to look at the post-communist educational system that Melania experienced growing up in Slovenia. In that system, what is typically considered plagiarism or cheating was exceedingly common and even encouraged." Melania Trump was born in 1970, meaning that she completed all of her elementary and high school education (and even some undergraduate studies) prior to 1989, commonly understood as the end of the so-called "communist era." It also means that what we are talking about is Melania Trump's communist-era education.

2.

It is a gross generalization to refer to "Eastern Europe" as if it were a single nation, and not a vast region with dozens of states, languages, histories, and relationships to "communism". To conflate the history of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Ms. Trump's birthplace, was part of the former Yugoslavia until 1991), with that of, for example, the Czech Republic (then Czechoslovakia), Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, or Albania, is to erase any trace of the specificities of each of these countries, their histories and their intricate experiences of "communism," or to be more accurate, different iterations of socialism and/or communism. Yugoslavia, in its post WWII period was in fact, not a part of the Warsaw Pact. After being  expelled from the Cominform in 1948, Yugoslavia developed an alternative form of socialism, generally understood as more open to the West. Yugoslavia was also a founder-state of the Non-Aligned Movement. This makes Slovenia's form of socialism, its political, social and cultural system quite different from the other communist countries of Eastern Europe.

3.

Dr. Nalepa singled out the University of Ljubljana. We want to emphasize that this university is renowned for producing some of the best and most critical work in theories of socialism, political science, sociology, history, and critical theory. To argue that Melania Trump's decision to plagiarize was a result of her education at this university is not only ill-informed, but it serves to undermine the work of countless scholars and teachers in the region, and also supports the ideology of Western supremacy in matters of politics, education, and even moral consciousness. What Dr. Nalepa did in this text is what Edward Said, many years ago, called Orientalism (ironically, Said taught at Columbia University, where Dr. Nalepa earned her PhD). Her text contributes to a long-standing discourse in which Western nations (and their scholars, journalists, politicians and others) feel entitled to proffer reductive generalizations about an already marginalized and colonized region. Said was using the term to describe the way that the Western colonizers constructed a tangled scholarly discourse about the Middle East to accompany actual colonizing efforts. The same discourse is found in the way Western scholars, journalists and others speak of  "African nations" or the "African continent" when referring to political, economic or cultural issues specific to particular nations. This same construct happens with Eastern Europe, but because of its proximity to the West, the final assessment of East European racial identity (and here, again, in forms of sweeping generalizations) is as "white but not quite" or "European but not quite," as some scholars have argued. Drawing on Said's work, Bulgarian historian Maria Todorova has aptly referred to this orientalization of the Balkans in particular, and Eastern Europe in general, as Balkanism, a view of the Balkans as "[g]eographically inextricable from Europe, yet culturally constructed as 'the other'" and especially, as uncivilized.

A fitting example of such a discourse has recently reared its ugly head in post-Brexit Britain, as many in the UK have blamed Polish immigrants and other East Europeans for the poor state of the UK economy. Rising xenophobia and racism have informed some of the most troubling human rights violations and humanitarian crises of 2016, and Dr. Nalepa's text is but one example of how discourses around marginalized peoples and regions in the world become institutionalized in academic contexts and instrumentalized by national and international media. This is what is most disconcerting to us: what is at stake when the public can blame Melania Trump's humiliating political moment on her immigrant and "socialist" background?

4.

Another problem with this text is its presumption that what Dr. Nalepa dubs communism was all one and the same idea across the world, or even a specific region, and that it was this homogenous ideology which was responsible for creating a culture of cheating and dishonesty. That communist ideas were indeed warped by the state systems in various countries is not a new observation. Countless scholars, artists, writers, film directors, and dissidents from across all walks of life were critical of their respective regimes. While it is well-known that such political systems have indeed resulted in repressive environments for students, to point to "communist education" as the impetus for Melania Trump's cheating at the US RNC in 2016 is laughable at best, and irresponsible at worst. In her introductory paragraphs Nalepa writes:

"The post-communist educational system at that time was a place where the line between original work and plagiarism was often hard to discern and the issue of intellectual ownership was never discussed. (...)

Memorization was an important component of education in post-communist Europe. This was a legacy of communism, when the dominant subjects — Marxist Ideology, The Foundations of Leninism, The Fundamentals of Socialist Economics, and so on — could not be criticized in a classroom setting without raising the suspicions of the authoritarian secret police."

One could deduce from this rather long diatribe about the ills of "communist education" (and our fear is that people will do so) that the corruption of the mind was all-encompassing, making people under such regimes mindless automatons. Ironically, Dr. Nalepa then places herself within that very framework, narrating her own experience with cheating on entrance exams to a university in Poland. The fact that she gained entrance to said university would make Dr. Nalepa herself a cheater, even if, as according to her own admission, everyone was cheating, and cheating was expected and endorsed. Yet despite this seemingly logical conclusion, we wish to stress that there is a sea of historical evidence in the form of voluminous and centuries-long scholarly work by such supposedly dishonest East European scholars. Within such a heinous system, as Dr. Nalepa would like us to believe East European education was, there were numerous intellectuals, writers, artists, and scientists who did important, and indeed crucial, work in various fields from linguistics, sociology, and art, to nuclear physics and astronomy.

5.

As scholars who for years have taught students in North American and European institutions of higher education, we want to ask Dr. Nalepa – why did you make the decision to write this piece? You certainly (should or must) know better. Plagiarism is rampant in different ways and in different forms in both North American but also in East European, West European and other universities. What we, however, should be worried about is a different kind of cheating that has to do with financial power and privilege, an insidious form of imbalance that allows some students to graduate from universities, while others are not able to even consider applying to one.

6.

Dr. Nalepa's revisionist scholarly approach to the study of Eastern Europe, post-communism and so-called transition, has become very popular in various countries of the former East Bloc. In revisionist academic discourse the history and contemporary analysis of the region is usually contextualized within a general dismissal of everything communist on the one hand, and the adoption of various neoliberal discourses on the other. Such neoliberal discourses narrate the history of communism in exclusively binary terms, and celebrate and support East European transition to Western-style "democracy" and capitalism as "the end of history." And while, on the surface, it might seem that much of the economic hardship in post-communist countries resulted from the legacies of the backward communist "mind," as Dr. Nalepa would want us to believe, many have argued that in reality it was the result of unfettered capitalism unleashed by the international economic and monetary institutions which impose their neo-liberal policies on various states in Eastern Europe, and across the world.

This brings us back to Melania Trump and Dr. Nalepa's commentary on her deplorable speech. These, and similar examples, are a red herring. They serve to distract from the real issue at hand: that political discourse, in the United States and elsewhere, is overwhelmingly cynical and empty. Melania Trump is only a symptom; a symptom of a corrupt political discourse in which certain phrases are repeated for ratings in social media. A discourse in which there is no substance, only style.

Dr. Nalepa's text hides another, deeper problem, that which has set the stage for Ms. Trump's husband's presidency. This is an unhinged, unchecked capitalism and its neoliberal demagogy of "working hard:" Cynical elites are selling the dream of "making it," while hiding that this is not possible under the system in which most social contracts and support networks have been destroyed and with them, any possibility of fair education, work, or health care. The racist violence of such an ideology permeates not only every aspect of American life, from Ferguson to Orlando to the convention floor in Cleveland, but beyond, to the world stage and streets of Baghdad, Aleppo and Istanbul, to the Mediterranean Sea, and voting booths in the UK. While it is appalling to read Dr. Nalepa's words, it is even more difficult to live under the weight of such utter devastation of rights and responsibilities, disguised in profound and damaging misinformation, perpetuated by stereotypes, prejudices, and an abdication of accountable research.

Sincerely,

Quote from: Dybuk on 05-08-2016, 15:53:15
'Murrica!!

nije tajna da Klint podrzava republikance (razgovor sa praznom stolicom koja je trebalo da predstavlja Obamu na onoj njihovoj konvenciji) itd.

Klint je legenda ali je u mojim ocima izgubio nesto kredibiliteta sa Americkim Snajperistom. e, sad...ovaj intervju i neke kontroverzne izjave podelili javnost, pa tako imamo i sledece reakcije

'Count Me In As A Pussy' – The Entertainment World Reacts To Clint Eastwood's Shocking Comments (http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/count-me-in-as-a-pussy-the-entertainment-world-reacts-to-clint-eastwoods-trump-support?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social)

kapiram ja njega...stereotip grumpy ol' man-a.

Quote
In dropping out, Donald Trump might point out there was no there there in his campaign. CHARLES TRAINOR JR TNS 
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94019107.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94019107.html#storylink=cpy) 


In a turn of events that shocked the political world and threw the presidential race into unprecedented turmoil, Donald J. Trump announced yesterday that he is quitting the race and endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Trump said the only point of his campaign was to show how stupid and gullible many Republican voters are.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94019107.html#storylink=cpy (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94019107.html#storylink=cpy) 

"I've been a Democrat all of my adult life," Trump told a packed and boisterous news conference. "But I knew if I ran as a Republican and said increasingly ridiculous, idiotic, racist and sexist things that I would get a lot of votes."
But he said he had no idea he would be able to win the Republican nomination and poll 40 percent or better in a national race against Clinton.
"Did people really believe that I could build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and get the Mexicans to pay for it?" Trump asked, "and that we could deport 11 million illegal aliens? That's ridiculous. How could we possibly do that?"
Trump said he wanted to show just how gullible the far-right wing was and how weak-kneed Republican leaders were.
  "Even after I made racist statements about that judge and attacked a Gold Star family, the Republican leadership continued to endorse me," Trump said. "Man, what does it take to get tossed out of the Republican Party?" He also pointed out that he had offered no real solutions to any of the country's problems and nobody, even the news media, took much notice that "there was no there there in my campaign," he said.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, while expressing shock at Trump's announcement, said, "After I thought about it a bit, I realized this made a lot more sense then the campaign he was running. The joke's on us."
Fifty-one Republicans immediately announced their candidacy to replace Trump on the ballot.
Asked if he felt any remorse about fooling so many people, Trump answered in typical Trumpian style: "No. They're all losers."

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94019107.html#storylink=cpy 

Quote
A white secessionist flown in from Britain might not seem the obvious choice for Donald Trump to reignite his African-American voter outreach programme, but at least Nigel Farage stuck to a message the people of Jackson, Mississippi have heard before.
"If you want change in this country, you'd better get out campaigning," Farage told them. "You'd better get your walking boots on."
They know what that means down there. It's 50 years since a young man called James Howard Meredith set off alone for Jackson from Memphis, Tennessee 220 miles away. He was intending to stop in every town along the way, telling African Americans about the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Telling them to register to vote, to stand up for their interests.
Unlike Farage, Meredith never made it. On the second day of his march, he got shot three times by a white supremacist (something that, until recently, you might have thought could never happen in British politics).
Martin Luther King and a load of other Civil Rights leaders had to turn up and finish the job. As they marched they talked another 15,000 black, 'anti-establishment' folk into getting their walking boots on too, and they still made it in plenty of time for Dr King to make it back to Memphis two years later so that he could also be shot by a white supremacist.
So they know a little bit about what it's like to be on the wrong side of the establishment down there. How hard they'll choose to a listen to a middle aged Englishman telling them how he and his army, "Said no to the banks and no to the politicians," when he's only had two jobs in his life, first a banker and then a politician, we'll find out on November 8th. That's the day, by the way, as if there were still a nanometre of mercury left to spare at the top of the bullshit-o-meter, that Mr Trump last night declared would be 'Independence Day, just like Britain had its Independence Day on June 23rd.'
They'd clapped like mad for "the man who led Brexit," as Donald Trump rightly labelled Nigel Farage as he called him to the stage. "This is a great honour for me," he told the crowd. He meant it.
It's fascism, this. And it's fully naked. Talk like you're taking on the powerful, then round on the vulnerable. And all this laid on by a little public schoolboy who used to march round the countryside singing Hitler Youth Songs and a daddy-made billionaire, backed with the full force of Rupert Murdoch's TV channel, flying round the world in a private jet with his name down the side, telling his followers to "stand up to the media."
"If the little people, the real people, the ordinary decent people, are prepared to stand up for what they believe in, we can overcome the big banks, we can overcome the multinationals," Farage bellowed, the Donald gurning proudly on as only he can. We can overcome the refugees. We can overcome the immigrants. We can overcome the chinkies and the people who don't speak English on the train. We can overcome the Romanians who'd better not be moving in next door.
Who knows, maybe the sight of Nigel Farage, ushered on stage by Donald Trump, introduced as "the man who led Brexit, the man who led this fight and won" will be sufficient for that thin blue line of supposedly enlightened Brexiters finally to come down off the fumes of their own delusional vainglory and take some responsibility for what they've done. (Don't count on it).
Perhaps this will be enough for them to come to accept that Nigel Farage was the man who led Brexit. That Britain's place in the world isn't the 'positive, outward looking, open to trade' place that exists only in Daniel Hannan's imagination, but it's place now is right there on stage, next to the 21st century demagogue who, just around the Gulf of Mexico from Jackson, Mississippi, wants to build a 2,000 mile long wall, that's certainly not to keep out the establishment.
And of course, it's all much worse than that. Trump, in all likelihood, is a loser. His own brand of The Art Of The Lie politics will meet with disaster three months from now. Farage's victory defines our age. We are the fascists, now.
Farage is a winner. That can't be doubted. And an inspirational figure too. "Remember," he told them at the end, rousing to the last, "Remember. Anything is possible if enough decent people stand up against the establishment!"
They were on their feet, the specially selected ladies and gentlemen of Jackson. But Farage's challenge is a challenge to us all. The fascists have got their marching boots on. So we'd better had too.

Hispanic leader who advises Trump camp telling me half of Trump's Hispanic advisory board is ready to resign today (15 of 30)
— Leslie Sanchez (@LeslieSanchez)

Quote
  Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she couldn't recall key details and events related to classified information procedures, according to notes the bureau released Friday of its July interview with the Democratic presidential nominee, along with a report on its investigation into her private email server.  Clinton told the FBI she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the bureau's notes of their interview with Clinton. The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not "recall" or "remember" at least 39 times — often in response to questions about process, potential training or the content of specific emails.  Much of the report reiterated what FBI Director James Comey testified in open hearings before Congress, including that more than six dozen email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent and that there appeared to have been hacking attempts on her server, though there is no evidence they were successful. Still, the report added fuel to the criticisms of Clinton and the narrative that her team acted "extremely careless," as Comey said. GOP nominee Donald Trump and other Republicans have stepped up their attacks connecting the emails to questions over whether Clinton gave preferential treatment to donors to her family's foundation. The release of the documents Friday comes as Clinton's lead over Trump has been cut in half since her post-convention bounce last month, according to CNN's Poll of Polls  (http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/cnn-poll-of-polls-clinton-leads-trump/index.html)released Thursday. The bureau is making the information public  (https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton)in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act requests, including from CNN.   "Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure," the agency said in a statement. "We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter." 
  Presidential campaign ramifications  The publication of the FBI report is likely to give a new burst of political life to the controversy over Clinton's private server.  The episode plays directly into Republican claims that Clinton is dishonest, abhors transparency and lacks the ethical standards required of someone who sits in the Oval Office. It also allows Trump's campaign to suggest to voters that they will be setting up a repeat of the cycle of scandals, controversy, and investigations that dragged on through the entire presidency of Bill Clinton and which tainted Hillary Clinton at the same time. "Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief," Trump said in a statement. "I was absolutely shocked to see that her answers to the FBI stood in direct contradiction to what she told the American people. After reading these documents, I really don't understand how she was able to get away from prosecution." Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, meanwhile, called the release a "devastating indictment" of Clinton's honesty and judgment. Clinton's campaign, however, said it was "pleased" by the release. "While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the Justice Department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case," Clinton's national press secretary Brian Fallon said in a statement.   'Oh s***' The FBI report also provided detail on mass deletions of Clinton's email server by the company maintaining her server, Platte River Networks, after the existence of it came to light.  According to the investigation report, top Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills told a PRN worker whose name was redacted in December 2014 that Clinton wanted her email to only be retained for 60 days, and instructed him to reset the retention policy on her email account. But the individual told the FBI he realized that he had failed to do so until after The New York Times published its bombshell story revealing Clinton's private server and email use, prompting an "'oh s***' moment." "In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, (name redacted) indicated he believed he had an 'oh s***' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015, deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's emails," the report stated.  The mass deletion occurred after the March 2, 2015, Times story and after a March 3, 2015, preservation order from the House Benghazi Committee to retain and produce documents related to her email accounts. Mills had sent this request to PRN and this individual on March 9, 2015, and under repeat questioning by the FBI, the individual admitted he was aware that the request existed and meant he shouldn't disturb the files on PRN's server. Both Mills and Clinton told the FBI they were not aware of the mass deletion that March.  Colin Powell One of the findings revealed in the report is that former Secretary of State Colin Powell "warned" Clinton that her emails could become government record in 2009. According to the report summarizing the FBI's investigation, Clinton emailed Powell just after inauguration in 2009 about his use of a BlackBerry as secretary of state.  "Powell warned Clinton that if it became 'public' that Clinton had a BlackBerry, and she used it to 'do business,' her emails could become 'official record(s) and subject to the law,'" the report stated. "Powell further advised Clinton, 'Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.'"  But the FBI said Clinton described her understanding of Powell's comments as saying that work-related emails would be official record, adding "Powell's comments did not factor into her decision to use a personal email account." Before it became public, interest in the contents of the report had intensified after it was reported that Clinton told the FBI a conversation with Powell recommending she use private email helped convince her to do so. Powell repudiated the idea that he shares any responsibility for her choice in the following days, however, and Clinton told CNN's Anderson Cooper last month that she takes full responsibility.  "I've been asked many, many questions in the past year about emails. And what I've learned is that when I try to explain what happened it can sound like I'm trying to excuse what I did," she told CNN. "And there are no excuses. I want people to know that the decision to have a single e- mail account was mine. I take responsibility for it. I've apologized for it. I would certainly do differently if I could." Powell rejects Clinton email defense (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/colin-powell-rejects-clinton-email-defense/)  Use of mobile devices The report also described the way Clinton used her BlackBerry mobile devices. Clinton has cited her desire to use a single BlackBerry as part of her motivation to use a personal email address. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin told the FBI that Clinton often would use a new BlackBerry for a few days before returning to an older model because of her familiarity, according to the report. The FBI found that 13 different mobile devices were used with her two known phone numbers, and thus may have sent emails with her private account. After Clinton switched to a new device, the previous incarnation would often disappear, and a former Bill Clinton aide, Justin Cooper, said he could recall two times he destroyed the old device either by breaking it in half or hitting it with a hammer. The findings also noted that Clinton stored her BlackBerry in a desk drawer in her office, which was not authorized. Her office was in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF), and thus the use of mobile devices in the office was prohibited. The former Assistant Secretary of State for State Diplomatic Security Service Eric Boswell told the FBI that he "never received any complaints about Clinton using her personal BlackBerry inside the SCIF."  According to Abedin, Cooper and another person whose name was redacted from the report, there were personally owned desktop computers in the SCIFs in Clinton's homes in Washington and Chappaqua, New York. Clinton had stated to the FBI she did not have a computer of any kind in the SCIFs in her residences. Abedin and Clinton said the former secretary of state did not use a computer and primarily used her BlackBerry or iPad for checking emails.  Handing of classified information The notes revealed that Clinton relied heavily on her staff and aides to determine what was classified information and how it should be handled.  "Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system," the FBI notes said. "She relied on State official to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address." Clinton was also asked about the (C) markings within several documents that James Comey testified before Congress represented classified information. The emails that were sent and received from her server containing these markings became the subject of intense debate on the Hill, as her critics seized on them as evidence that she mishandled information. But Clinton told the FBI she was unaware of what the marking meant. "Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the interview notes stated.  The former secretary of state said she did understand when an email was marked "confidential" at the top, and "asked the interviewing agents if that was what 'c' referenced," according to the notes. The confidential label had been placed there by the FBI after the fact.  She also said she didn't "pay attention to the 'level' of classified information and took all classified information seriously." The interview also addressed a 2011 email (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/) in which Clinton said she hadn't received talking points from her aide, Jake Sullivan. He responded that there were issues sending the document through secure fax.  "If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." That email had been the fuel behind speculation that Cilnton had demanded her aide send classified information through a nonsecure channel by removing markings. But Clinton told the FBI that she understood the request as routine.  "Clinton thought a 'nonpaper' was a way to convey the unofficial stance of the US government to a foreign government and believed this practice went back '200 years,'" she said, according to interview notes. "When viewing the displayed email, Clinton believed she was asking Sullivan to remove the State letterhead and provide unclassified talking points. Clinton stated she had no intention to remove classification markings."  Fallout from Comey's remarks Comey in July took the unprecedented step of announcing in a press conference the FBI's conclusion that there was not enough evidence to merit a criminal prosecution, before handing over his findings to the Justice Department. Anticipation for FBI's release on Clinton investigation (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/politics/fbi-report-hillary-clinton-investigation/) The DOJ followed that recommendation and decided no prosecution was merited.  After Comey testified about the decision before Congress, members requested access to his agency's report. Last month, the bureau gave members of Congress access to the notes, as well as notes from interviews with other Clinton staff and aides, but kept that version of the report classified.  Comey testified that no transcript of the interview exists, only the notes taken on it. Clinton was not under oath.  The FBI's release Friday did not include the notes of interviews with Clinton's aides.   

QuoteThe Clinton campaign is stepping up its attacks on Donald Trump's past leading the "birther" movement to question President Obama's citizenship as it continues to paint the real estate mogul as a bigoted conspiracy theorist.
Over the weekend, the campaign tweeted from Clinton's account that it was "astonishing" that the Republican nominee still "refuses to acknowledge" that the president was born in the United States, after Trump would not answer a reporter's question whether he now believed Obama was a citizen. On Tuesday, spokeswoman Christina Reynolds brought up Trump's birtherism in a statement responding to his comment that Clinton did not "look presidential."
"This isn't the first time Donald Trump has had a problem looking at someone different from himself and actually seeing them," Reynolds said. "He looked at a sitting president and said he wasn't American."
Wednesday, Clinton's campaign again tweeted about the controversy.
When Trump began reaching out to black voters in speeches last month, arguing that voting for Democrats had not alleviated poverty and crime in black communities, the Clinton campaign hit back with a coordinated campaign to portray Trump as a bigoted conspiracy theorist, synthesized in Clinton's speech two weeks ago in Reno tying the candidate to an "alt right" network of white supremacists (https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-tries-to-stop-trump-mid-pivot-by-tying-him-to-alt-right-192803698.html) and extremists.
"Let's not forget that Trump first gained political prominence leading the charge for the so-called 'birthers,'" she said then. "He promoted the racist lie that President Obama is not really an American citizen — part of a sustained effort to delegitimize America's first black president."
The day after Clinton's speech, her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, reminded voters at a speech at the historically black college Florida A&M University of Trump's birtherism. "Donald Trump was a main guy behind the scurrilous and I would say bigoted notion that President Obama wasn't even born in this country, and Donald Trump has continued to push that irresponsible falsehood," Kaine said.
But Clinton hasn't brought up Trump's birther past since she began campaigning again on Monday after a stretch of fundraisers. A surrogate for her campaign and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., says he hopes the candidate herself will not focus on the issue going forward as she enters the homestretch — instead leaving it to aides and surrogates.
"I think what folks want to know is what are you going to do for us as president and how is that going to make a difference in our lives," Meeks said. "And leave the other stuff to guys like me."
Clinton's alt-right speech made sense as a "one-time piece" that laid out the facts for the voters before moving on, Meeks said, comparing it to when Obama gave a speech on race during his campaign in '08.
"It's more important for her ... to lift the hopes and aspirations that Americans have," and to highlight the investments she will make in jobs, Meeks said. The congressman and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus have been highlighting the birther issue for her, with Meeks calling Trump's refusal to disavow his birtherism "a way to appeal to the David Dukes of the world."
Clinton is still showcasing Trump's comments about minorities, but as part of a broader argument saying Trump does not respect all Americans. At a voter registration event in Tampa on Tuesday, Clinton said Trump "demeans" groups of Americans, including minorities, adding that they "have every right to be respected by the president of the United States." Kaine also spent a good portion of his speech in Cleveland Monday emphasizing that Trump's company was sued for housing discrimination against black renters in the 1970s.
Polls suggest black voters overwhelmingly back Clinton over Trump, but some Democrats are worried about a report that shows black millennials are not enthusiastically supporting her (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/us/politics/young-blacks-voice-skepticism-on-hillary-clinton-worrying-democrats.html). Clinton will need high turnout among black voters to help drive her victory.
Trump, for his part, is trying to distance himself from his past questioning of whether the first African American president was born in the United States, telling reporters at multiple points during the campaign that he doesn't "talk about it." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/06/donald-trump-is-still-as-much-of-a-birther-as-he-ever-was/) One of his top surrogates, Ben Carson, said on CNN Tuesday that it would be a "good idea" for Trump to apologize for his birther past to try to win back some black voters alienated by the movement.On Tuesday, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly asked Trump if he thought his birtherism had hurt him with black voters. Trump replied, "I don't know," before reiterating that he no longer talks about Obama's citizenship.
Trump never said he was satisfied when Obama released his long-form birth certificate from Hawaii in 2011, but largely stopped bringing the matter up afterward. Asked by Anderson Cooper in 2015 if he now believed the president was born in the states (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/09/acd.01.html), he said he didn't know but no longer focused on it.
Obama has long treated Trump's birther attacks as a joke, memorably roasting Trump in his address at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011 as Trump stiffly listened (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4). He said Trump now could get back to the "issues that matter, like, did we fake the moon landing?" He mocked Trump's connection to the show "Celebrity Apprentice," saying that his decision about whether to fire Lil Jon or Meat Loaf from the show "would keep me up at night."
Obama never shied away from the birther issue, which struck many of his supporters as an example of the irrational and sometimes racially–motivated opposition from conservatives who were questioning his legitimacy instead of his policies. In 2012, one of the hottest items in Obama's online campaign merchandise store was a white coffee mug with Obama's newly public birth certificate pasted on it. "We sold close to 40,000 made-in-the-USA mugs with the birth certificate graphic," a campaign aide told Yahoo News at the time (https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-the-big-business-of-little-presidential-116657878996.html). "We bought all of the white union-made mugs in the country."

QuoteU.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are investigating what they see as a broad covert Russian operation in the United States to sow public distrust in the upcoming presidential election and in U.S. political institutions, intelligence and congressional officials said.
The aim is to understand the scope and intent of the Russian campaign, which incorporates ­cyber-tools to hack systems used in the political process, enhancing Russia's ability to spread disinformation.
The effort to better understand Russia's covert influence operations is being coordinated by James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence. "This is something of concern for the DNI," said Charles Allen, a former longtime CIA officer who has been briefed on some of these issues. "It is being addressed."
A Russian influence operation in the United States "is something we're looking very closely at," said one senior intelligence official who, like others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. Officials also are examining potential disruptions to the election process, and the FBI has alerted state and local officials to potential cyberthreats.
The official cautioned that the intelligence community is not saying it has "definitive proof" of such tampering, or any Russian plans to do so. "But even the hint of something impacting the security of our election system would be of significant concern," the official said. "It's the key to our democracy, that people have confidence in the election system." Russian President Vladimir Putin says he doesn't know who was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, but it was important the information had been made public. (Bloomberg)
Russian President Vladimir Putin says he doesn't know who was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, but it was important the information had been made public. Putin: No idea who hacked US Democratic Party (Bloomberg)  The Kremlin's intent may not be to sway the election in one direction or another, officials said, but to cause chaos and provide propaganda fodder to attack U.S. democracy-building policies around the world, particularly in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
[Russia's anti-American fever goes beyond the Soviet era's (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-anti-us-sentiment-now-is-even-worse-than-it-was-in-soviet-union/2015/03/08/b7d534c4-c357-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html)]
U.S. intelligence officials described the covert influence campaign here as "ambitious" and said it is also designed to counter U.S. leadership and influence in international affairs.
Their comments came just before President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin talked privately about cyberspying and other matters on the sidelines of the Group of 20 talks in China. After their meeting Monday, Obama acknowledged tensions over digital espionage and said the United States had strong capability in this area. "Our goal is not to suddenly, in the cyber arena, duplicate the cycle of escalation we saw when it comes to other arms races in the past," Obama said.
One congressional official, who has been briefed recently on the matter, said "Russian 'active measures' or covert influence or ma­nipu­la­tion efforts, whether it's in Eastern Europe or in the United States," are worrisome.
It "seems to be a global campaign," the aide said. As a result, the issue has "moved up as a priority" for the intelligence agencies, which include the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security as well as the CIA and the National Security Agency.
Some congressional leaders briefed recently by the intelligence agencies on Russian influence operations in Europe, and how they may serve as a template for activities in the United States, were disturbed by what they heard.
After Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) ended a secure 30-minute phone briefing given by a top intelligence official recently, he was "deeply shaken," according to an aide who was with Reid when he left the secure room at the FBI's Las Vegas office.
The Russian government hack of the Democratic National Committee, disclosed by the DNC in June (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html) but not yet officially ascribed by the U.S. government to Russia, and the subsequent release of 20,000 hacked DNC emails by WikiLeaks, shocked officials. Cyber analysts traced its digital markings to known Russian government hacking groups.
[Cyber researchers confirm Russian hack of DNC (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cyber-researchers-confirm-russian-government-hack-of-democratic-national-committee/2016/06/20/e7375bc0-3719-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html)]
"We've seen an unprecedented intrusion and an attempt to influence or disrupt our political process," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, speaking about the DNC hack and the WikiLeaks release on the eve of the Democratic convention. The disclosures, which included a number of embarrassing internal emails, forced the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Members of both parties are urging the president to take the Russians to task publicly.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) in a statement urged Obama to publicly name Russia as responsible for the DNC hack and apparent meddling in the electoral process. "Free and legitimate elections are non-negotiable. It's clear that Russia thinks the reward outweighs any consequences," he wrote. "That calculation must be changed. . . . This is going to take a cross-domain response — diplomatic, political and economic — that turns the screws on Putin and his cronies."
Another Republican, Sen. Daniel Coats of Indiana, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Sunday that if Moscow is indeed trying to influence the U.S. election, "such actions would be an outrageous violation of international rules of behavior and cannot be tolerated."
Administration officials said they are still weighing their response.
Russia has denied that it carried out any cyber-intrusions in the United States. Putin called the accusations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-denies-that-russia-hacked-the-dnc-but-says-it-was-for-the-public-good/2016/09/02/d507a335-baa8-40e1-9805-dfda5d354692_story.html) against Russia by U.S. officials and politicians an attempt to "distract the public's attention."
"It doesn't really matter who hacked this data from Mrs. Clinton's campaign headquarters," Putin said in an interview with Bloomberg News, referring to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. "The important thing is the content was given to the public."
[Russian hackers targeted Arizona election system (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-is-investigating-foreign-hacks-of-state-election-systems/2016/08/29/6e758ff4-6e00-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html)]
The Department of Homeland Security has offered local and state election officials help to prevent or deal with Election Day cyber disruptions, including vulnerability scans, regular actionable information and alerts, and access to other tools for improving cybersecurity at the local level. It will also have a cyber team ready at the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center to alert jurisdictions if attacks are detected.
Last month, the FBI issued an unprecedented warning to state election officials urging them to be on the lookout for intrusions into their election systems and to take steps to upgrade security measures across the voting process, including voter registration, voter rolls and election-related websites. The confidential "flash" alert (https://s.yimg.com/dh/ap/politics/images/boe_flash_aug_2016_final.pdf) said investigators had detected attempts to penetrate election systems in several states.
Arizona, Illinois and both the Democratic and Republican parties, as well as the DNC, have been the victims of either attempted or successful cyberattacks that FBI agents with expertise in Russian government hacking are investigating.
Federal law enforcement and local election officials say the decentralized nature of the voting process, which is run by states and counties, makes it impossible to ensure a high level of security in each district.
"I have a lot of concern" about this year's election, said Ion Sancho, the longtime supervisor of elections in Leon County, Fla. "America doesn't have its act together." Sancho, who has authorized red-team attacks on his voting system to identify its vulnerabilities, added: "We need a plan."
Sancho and others are particularly concerned about electronic balloting from overseas that travels on vulnerable networks before landing in the United States, and about efforts to use cyberattacks to disrupt vote tabulations being transmitted to state-level offices. Encryption, secure paper backups and secure backup computers are critical, he said.
Tom Hicks, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an agency set up by Congress after the 2000 Florida recount to maintain election integrity, said he is confident that states have sufficient safeguards in place to ward off intrusions. He noted that electronic balloting from overseas is conducted by email, not through online voting machines. The overseas voter "waives their right of privacy" by emailing the ballot, which is tabulated by election officials. The email may still be hacked, but it is not a systemic risk, he said.
Recently, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said he favors designating the voting systems used in the country's 9,000 polling places as "critical infrastructure" — in other words, as vital to the nation's safe functioning as nuclear power plants and electrical power grids.
[Readout of Secretary Jeh Johnson's call with state election officials on cybersecurity (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/08/15/readout-secretary-johnsons-call-state-election-officials-cybersecurity)]
Such a designation could mean increased DHS funding to localities to help ensure that voter registration, ballots and ballot tabulation remain free from interference. But it won't happen before the November elections, federal and local officials said.
Russia has been in the vanguard of a growing global movement to use propaganda on the Internet to influence people and political events, especially since the political revolt in Ukraine, the subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia, and the imposition of sanctions on Russia by the United States and the European Union.
The Baltic states, Georgia and Ukraine have been subject to Russian cyberattacks and other hidden influence operations meant to disrupt those countries, officials said.
"Our studies show that it is very likely that [the influence] operations are centrally run," said Janis Sarts, director of the NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence, a research organization based in Riga, Latvia.
He also said there is "a coordinated effort involving [groups using] Twitter and Facebook and networks of bots to amplify their message. The main themes seem to be orchestrated rather high up in the hierarchy of the Russian state, and then there are individual endeavors by people to exploit specific themes."
Sarts said the Russian propaganda effort has been "successful in exploiting the vulnerabilities within societies." In Western Europe, for instance, such Russian information operations have focused on the politically divisive refugee crisis.
On the eve of a crucial post-
revolution presidential vote in Ukraine in 2014, a digital assault nearly crippled the country's Central Election Commission's website. Pro-Moscow hackers calling themselves the CyberBerkut claimed responsibility, saying they were not state-affiliated, but the authorities in Kiev blamed Moscow. The Russians used a "denial of service" technique, flooding the commission's Web server with a high volume of requests, which was meant to slow down or disable the network.

BARNICLE: What would you do, if you were elected, about Aleppo?
JOHNSON: About . . . ?
BARNICLE: Aleppo.
JOHNSON

Quote from: Dybuk on 21-09-2016, 16:24:17
Izbori su predugo trajali...kad ce bre ti izbori? :lol:
ja se divim ovim vremesnim kandidatima, treba izgurati te kampanje.

Quote
Donald Trump  (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103987603)'s presidential campaign appears to be slipping into a death spiral and the Republican nominee is running out of chances to turn things around.
In just the last week, Trump entered into a unwinnable war of words over the weight problems of a former Miss Universe including a bizarre 3:00 a.m. Tweet storm, claimed his opponent may be cheating on her husband, blamed a bad microphone and an unfair moderator for his disastrous debate performance and saw The New York Times reveal (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1) that he took a $916 million tax loss in 1995 and may have paid no income tax for nearly two decades.
On Monday morning, The Associated Press reported on Trump's alleged sexist and boorish behavior on the set of "The Apprentice" (http://apne.ws/2doZd90) and the Center for Public Integrity alleged that Trump's real estate business rented office space to an Iranian bank that U.S. authorities say has links to terrorism. (http://bit.ly/2doXNvd)
And Trump woke up Monday to fresh polling showing the debate tilted the race heavily back to  Hillary Clinton  (http://www.cnbc.com/hillary-clinton/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=103987603). The latest Politico/Morning Consult poll shows the Democratic nominee surging to a 6-point lead (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-poll-politico-morning-consult-229038) after leading by just 1 ahead of the debate. And a new poll out of swing-state Virginia now shows Clinton up 7 in the state. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/3/hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-7-points-virgin/)
Trump is also not getting much of an assist from his top surrogates. In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani called Trump a "genius" (http://nbcnews.to/2dy8kpJ) for the giant tax loss and said the GOP nominee's wizardry would be better for the nation than "a woman." For good measure, Giuliani threw in that "everybody" engages in extramarital affairs.
Trump's only chance to win is to make the election a referendum on Clinton and the economy. But it's easy to forget these days that Clinton is even in the race and the economy is basically an afterthought. As I've pointed out repeatedly in the past (http://cnb.cx/2d8xIP7), Trump's favorite subject is Trump and he will never tolerate the campaign being about anything other than Trump.
Trump supporters apparently believe he is still capable of change, even though he has repeatedly shown no interest in shifting course. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The New York Times that this long-awaited metamorphosis could still arrive. (http://nyti.ms/2dpVRCp)
"He has gotten himself to the edge of the mountain, he can get himself to the top of the mountain, but to do that he has to be willing to make real change," Gingrich said. "I really want him to understand that he can win this. He is the one person who can beat him — not Hillary."
Gingrich is not wrong about this. Clinton remains highly distrusted and mostly disliked by the American people. She is struggling badly with younger voters who are flirting with the third-party candidates. Majorities still view the nation as on the wrong track, usually an ominous sign for the incumbent party. And the GOP nominee could probably set himself on fire and still count on around 40 percent of the electorate to support him.
And Trump is not entirely out of chances. The vice presidential debate on Tuesday will begin to reframe the race though it will certainly prove a giant ratings drop from the first Trump-Clinton showdown. And then Trump has a chance on Sunday night to turn in a more disciplined debate performance and put the focus back on Clinton's weaknesses including her email scandal, the Benghazi attack, her Wall Street ties and the soft economy.
Trump has trailed badly before and brought the race back to even. He still has just enough time to do that again. And he remains ahead in Ohio and close to even in Florida, Colorado and a handful of other swing states.
Republicans including Roger Stone are also suggesting that Wikileaks this week could release the "mother lode" of damaging emails and other information about Clinton. We've heard this refrain for months now but perhaps it will finally turn out to be true.
And all the "Trump could turn this around" narratives rely on the idea that he is capable of becoming a totally different candidate. The Sunday debate in St. Louis is also a town hall format in which candidates must take questions from and interact with regular folks. Clinton is very practiced at this kind of thing while Trump is not. He could shock everyone and be a friendly, relatable guy in the debate and launch a brand-new strategy that reverses his sliding poll numbers and once again makes 2016 a referendum on Clinton. And the Easter Bunny could also be real.—Ben White is Politico's chief economic correspondent and a CNBC contributor. He also authors the daily tip sheet Politico Morning Money [politico.com/morningmoney (http://politico.com/morningmoney)]. Follow him on Twitter @morningmoneyben (https://twitter.com/morningmoneyben).

Traveling press pool was told that the photo-op would be Trump conducting debate prep. Turned out to be a photo-op with Clinton accusers.
  — Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb)

You are on a college campus where 1 in 5 women r survivors of

Using women as a human shields instead of being accountable for your words & actions just affirms that you think women are objects.

So....this is #Trump (https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash)'s version of a damn debate prep? If these women were victims...parading them around for politics is DISGUSTING!
  — Amber J. Younger (@AJ_Ski_Bum)  October 9, 2016 (https://twitter.com/AJ_Ski_Bum/status/785265789431533568)

Trump has mocked these women. Belittled their looks. He's said Paula Jones should have "run faster."He's their champion? #debate (https://twitter.com/hashtag/debate?src=hash)
  — Jennifer Weiner (@jenniferweiner)  October 9, 2016 (https://twitter.com/jenniferweiner/status/785268335747489792)

Yoooo people are listening to Trump's response like "yeah obviously me sexually assaulting someone isn't as bad as murder overseas"

Despite whatever Trump is saying during this

Quote
Voting machines are privately manufactured and developed and, as with other many other IT systems, the code is typically proprietary.
The use of proprietary systems in elections has its critics. One Silicon Valley group, the Open Source Election Technology Foundation (http://www.osetfoundation.org/), is pushing for an election system that shifts from proprietary, vendor-owned systems to one that that is owned "by the people of the United States."
But today, election system makers can operate in much the same manner as any vendor to build code; that includes using overseas developers.
One major election technology company, Dominion Voting Systems (DVS), develops its systems in the U.S. and Canada but also has an office in Belgrade, Serbia. It was recently advertising openings for four senior software developers in Belgrade (http://www.dominionvoting.com/company).   "Like many of America's largest technology companies -- which develop some of the software for their products in places like Asia, India, Ireland and the Mideast -- some of our software development is undertaken outside the U.S. and Canada, specifically, in Serbia, where we have conducted operations for 10 years," said firm spokesman Chris Riggall, in an email.
Dominion said it takes measures "to ensure the accuracy, integrity and security of the software we create for our products."
"First, all of our software is developed in-house by DVS employees and this work is not outsourced to third parties. Second, we rigorously pre-screen all new hires to identify any potential security concerns among any personnel involved in product development. Third, we conduct extensive internal testing of all new software to evaluate the functionality, accuracy and security of the code designed for our systems," said Riggall.



The software "is subjected to rigorous review, analysis, testing and certification by election authorities at the federal, state and local level, including the federal Election Assistance Commission," said Riggall. The election system purchasing is managed by states and local governments. Once the code is certified, any changes require a new round of certification testing by election authorities, he said.



Alan Paller, president and director of research at the Sans Technology Institute, read Dominion's statement and said the "general care this vendor shows in this statement gives me no reason to believe there's any greater risk there than in any other company that manufacturers voting systems."
Paller said that "one shouldn't feel complacent about maintaining software development and manufacturing all within the United States because foreign agencies have successfully placed technically competent spies on the payroll of American technology companies."
But Suzanne Mello-Stark, a forensic computer scientist at Worcester Polytechnic Institute with a focus on voting machines, wants software and hardware transparency in voting systems.
"The systems are proprietary and we don't know what the code looks like," said Mello-Stark.

Quote from: PizzobattoUništavaju ga s ženskim pitanjem, a on ćuti o Klintonkinoj odbrani silovatelja osamdesetih. To mi baš čudno, ili čuva stvar za kraj kampanje. Ako ništa ne uradi žene će ga osakatiti na izborima, sasvim opravdano, naravno.

QuoteTrump was always destined to be little more than the fall guy to get Clinton elected. While Trump has his loyal followers, the assumption was that the floating voter would never support such a figure and that Clinton would be a relatively safer bet. As Ron Horn on his Surviving Capitalism website argues, Clinton was always the US deep state's choice and she was always going to win – by hook or by crook.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 18-10-2016, 16:22:40
vječiti sukob

Quote
Donald Trump walked away from a reporter (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-abruptly-ends-interview-after-reporter-asks-about-people-calling-him-sexist-racist/) mid-interview Thursday after he was asked about people who've called him a racist and a sexist.
In a one-on-one interview (http://nbc4i.com/2016/10/20/watch-colleen-marshalls-1-on-1-interview-with-donald-trump/) ahead of his campaign rally in Ohio, local NBC4 reporter Colleen Marshall questioned the Republican presidential nominee about his widely disputed voter fraud claims (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trumps-sons-say-the-election-is-plagued-by-cheating-and-voter-fraud-054339785.html), criticisms of his tax plan and even the string of prominent Republicans (https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-lacerate-trump-after-video-leak-of-obscene-2005-comments-141929683.html) who've withdrawn their support for his campaign following the release of the now-infamous "Access Hollywood" videotape earlier this month.
But when the conversation turned to accusations of racism and sexism, it was clear Trump had had enough.
"Nineteen days out from the election, you've been labeled a racist, you've been called a sexist," Marshall began before the candidate cut her off.
"Thank you very much," Trump said abruptly as he started to walk away.
Marshall made a final attempt to ask, "How do you respond to that?"
Trump turned around and retorted: "I am the least racist person you've ever met."

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 22-10-2016, 20:11:51
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weeNYQg_j04 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weeNYQg_j04)

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 25-10-2016, 15:14:18
tvist na kraju: glasači Hilari Klinton su zombiji!

Quote from: Agota on 25-10-2016, 15:22:05

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 25-10-2016, 15:14:18
tvist na kraju: glasači Hilari Klinton su zombiji!

Brrrrrrrrrrr...

stvarno ljudi, šta im je činiti, izbor izmedju kompletnog ludaka ili nesrećnog zla??

Quote from: Agota on 01-05-2016, 01:41:10
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.breitbart.com%2Fmedia%2F2016%2F03%2FSusan-Sarandon-4-AP-640x480.jpg&hash=482e834deb5a154162d7224c37837bc046f4f636)
Susan Sarandon Prefers Donald Trump's Wall to Hillary Clinton's 'Moral Judgment'

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/04/28/sarandon-prefers-trumps-wall-to-clintons-moral-judgment/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/04/28/sarandon-prefers-trumps-wall-to-clintons-moral-judgment/)

Quote from: Agota on 25-10-2016, 15:46:16
ako  treba da se pojašnjava - ko je lud ?? onda neka pobedi Tramp! :-|

Quote from: Agota on 25-10-2016, 15:46:16
ako  treba da se pojašnjava - ko je lud ?? onda neka pobedi Tramp! :-|

Quote
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg attempted to explain the sentiment of Donald Trump's supporters, noting that many would be "flipping hamburgers" after they lose their jobs to technology.
"One thing that has to be said here is Donald Trump really does represent 40% to 45% of this country. They are petrified of their future. Their next job once they get laid off is going to be flipping hamburgers. They're going to live until 85 and their Social Security is not enough to live on and they're being forced out of their jobs in their fifties or whatever," the multi-billionaire media and technology magnate said at Bloomberg's "The Year Ahead" conference in New York on Tuesday.
He acknowledged that technology, not global trade, is destroying an enormous number of jobs. Indeed, this explains why manufacturing activity is up even as manufacturing jobs falter (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/clinton-and-trump-are-debating-about-the-economy-like-its-1996-114649869.html). This is a problem that affects the constituents of both political parties.
Bloomberg later added that the "greatest conundrum" the next administration and the country faces will be how to create jobs as technology forces more people out of work. He noted some estimates suggest that up to 40% of jobs could be automated.
There was a time when people called on Bloomberg to run for president. Bloomberg considered a presidential run as a third-party candidate, but he believes he would have garnered one-third of the vote and no one would have a majority. The decision would have gone to the House of Representatives and they would have picked Trump.
"You just can't do that to this country," Bloomberg, who has now publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton, said.
Bloomberg expects that Clinton will win the presidency and the House will remain Republican. That said, he doesn't expect Clinton to get "much cooperation" out of the House and she'll have a huge disapproval rating in the "honeymoon" period of her presidency.

Four years from now, it wouldn't surprise him if Sen. Ted Cruz ran against Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Quote
Hillary Clinton and her campaign criticized the FBI's Friday announcement (https://gma.yahoo.com/fbi-director-says-congressional-investigation-hillary-clinton-emails-175804512--abc-news-topstories.html#) that it would be examining more emails potentially connected to its earlier investigation of her email server, calling it "extraordinary" that the news would break less than two weeks before a presidential election.
Clinton said she expects the examination of newly discovered material reportedly uncovered in a criminal probe of Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, to result in no new charges.
"The American people deserve to get the full and complete facts immediately. The director himself has said he doesn't know whether the emails referenced in his letter are significant or not. I'm confident whatever they are will not change the conclusion reached in July," Clinton told reporters Friday evening after a Des Moines, Iowa, rally.
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta first called on FBI Director James Comey on Friday afternoon to provide the "full details" of what new emails he is now probing before Clinton echoed the call.

Clinton, who briefly answered questions from the press, said she was confident any new information would not change the decision the FBI reached months ago. But with the presidential election 11 days away — and early voting already underway in many states — she was eager to put the matter to rest.
"We've heard these rumors. We don't know what to believe. And I'm sure there will be even more rumors. That's why it's incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they're talking about, because right now your guess is as good as mine," Clinton said.
FBI Director James Comey wrote to Congress on Friday that he had uncovered emails in an unrelated case that "appear to be pertinent" to the agency's previous investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state. Comey said investigators would look into whether the emails contained classified information. In July, Comey announced he would not be recommending prosecution in Clinton's case, because no laws were broken, though he chastised Clinton for being "careless" with classified information.
The New York Times and the Associated Press reported Friday that the new emails were uncovered while the FBI was investigating inappropriate text messages that Weiner allegedly sent to a 15-year-old girl (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur). Weiner is the husband of Clinton's longtime aide Huma Abedin, and the FBI seized devices that belonged to both Weiner and Abedin in the investigation, the Times reported. Abedin announced she was separating from Weiner several months ago.

The Clinton campaign's statement also said the FBI's announcement did not indicate the agency was "reopening" the previous investigation into Clinton.
"FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen," Podesta said. "Already, we have seen characterizations that the FBI is 'reopening' an investigation, but Comey's words do not match that characterization."

Quote
Unearthed tape: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' 
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the current election (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-defending-rigged-election-talk-calls-president/story?id=43053336) is "rigged."
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."

Chomsky recalls being taken aback that "anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections."
Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral equivalency.

Regarding capturing combatants in war—the June capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas militants who came across the Gaza border via an underground tunnel was very much front of mind—Clinton can be heard on the tape saying, "And then, when, you know, Hamas, you know, sent the terrorists, you know, through the tunnel into Israel that killed and captured, you know, kidnapped the young Israeli soldier, you know, there's a sense of like, one-upsmanship, and in these cultures of, you know, well, if they captured a soldier, we've got to capture a soldier."
Equating Hamas, which to this day remains on the State Department's official list (http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm) of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, with the armed forces of a close American ally was not what many expected to hear in the Jewish Press editorial offices, which were then at Third Avenue and Third Street in Brooklyn. (The paper's office has since moved to the Boro Park section of Brooklyn.) The use of the phrase "these cultures" is also a bit of a head-scratcher.
According to Chomsky, Clinton was "gracious, personable and pleasant throughout" the interview, taking about an hour to speak to, in addition to himself, managing editor Jerry Greenwald, assistant to the publisher Naomi Klass Mauer, counsel Dennis Rapps and senior editor Jason Maoz.
Another part of the tape highlights something that was relatively uncontroversial at the time but has taken on new meaning in light of the current campaign—speaking to leaders with whom our country is not on the best terms. Clinton has presented a very tough front in discussing Russia, for example, accusing Trump of unseemly ardor for strongman Vladimir Putin and mocking his oft-stated prediction (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-quotes/) that as president he'd "get along" with Putin.
Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.
"Do you think it's worth talking to Syria—both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel's point [of view]?"
Clinton replied, "You know, I'm pretty much of the mind that I don't see what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you're not stupid and giving things away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary, they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our shores, we never stopped talking to them," an answer that reflects her mastery of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.

Shortly after, she said, "But if you say, 'they're evil, we're good, [and] we're never dealing with them,' I think you give up a lot of the tools that you need to have in order to defeat them...So I would like to talk to you [the enemy] because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I've got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my campaign against you. That's my take on it."
A final bit of interest to the current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to terrorism, Clinton said, "I think you can make the case that whether you call it 'Islamic terrorism' or 'Islamo-fascism,' whatever the label is we're going to give to this phenomenon, it's a threat. It's a global threat. To Europe, to Israel, to the United States...Therefore we need a global response. It's a global threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of principle...So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as you realize that underneath that global vision there's a lot of variety and differentiation that has to go on."
It's not clear what she means by a global vision with variety and differentiation, but what's quite clear is that the then-senator, just five years after her state was the epicenter of the September 11 attacks, was comfortable deploying the phrase "Islamic terrorism" and the even more strident "Islamo-fascism," at least when meeting with the editorial board of a Jewish newspaper.
In an interview before the Observer heard the tape, Chomsky told the Observer that Clinton made some "odd and controversial comments" on the tape. The irony of a decade-old recording emerging to feature a candidate making comments that are suddenly relevant to voters today was not lost on Chomsky, who wrote the original story at the time. Oddly enough, that story, headlined "Hillary Clinton on Israel, Iraq and Terror," is no longer available on jewishpress.com and even a short summary (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725828/posts) published on the Free Republic site offers a broken link that can no longer surface the story.
"I went to my bosses at the time," Chomsky told the Observer. "The Jewish Press had this mindset that they would not want to say anything offensive about anybody—even a direct quote from anyone—in a position of influence because they might need them down the road. My bosses didn't think it was newsworthy at the time. I was convinced that it was and I held onto it all these years."

Disclosure: Donald Trump is the father-in-law of Jared Kushner, publisher of Observer Media.

Quote
Hillary Clinton may still be ahead in most national polls (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/29/clinton-47-trump-45-in-post-abc-tracking-poll/), but at least one expert remains convinced that Donald Trump will be our next president.
American University Professor Allen J. Lichtman, who has accurately predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1984, first forecast a victory for the GOP nominee during an interview with the Washington Post last month (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/this-professor-has-predicted-every-presidential-election-since-1984-hes-still-trying-to-figure-out-2016/?tid=a_inl). Granted, this was before the release of the now-infamous "Access Hollywood" tape, followed by mounting allegations (https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-miss-utah-temple-taggart-speaks-out-against-trumps-threat-to-sue-his-accusers-215203242.html) of sexual misconduct, which Trump has attempted to counter with claims that the election is rigged and that the media is conspiring against him. Meanwhile, the tense presidential debates concluded with the suggestion from Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/news/some-republicans-rip-trump-for-refusal-to-say-hell-accept-election-results-155052341.html) that he might not accept the outcome of the election if he is not the winner.
Despite all this, however, Lichtman has not wavered from his prediction.
"By the narrowest of possible margins, the keys still point to a Trump victory," he told the Post this week. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/)
As Lichtman noted in this latest interview, he is not a "psychic," nor does he "look into a crystal ball." Rather, his projections are based on a unique system that relies on 13 True/False questions, or "keys," to evaluate the strength of the incumbent party.
"An answer of True on these True/False questions always favors the reelection of the party in power," Lichtman explained. "And if six or more of the 13 keys are False, the party in power, the party holding the White House, is the predicted loser — any six or more."
Until last month, he said, the Democratic Party only had five keys against it. The final key that led Lichtman to make his prediction that Trump will win was "the third-party key, and that is based on an assessment that you would expect the third-party candidate, in this case the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, to get 5 percent or more of the vote."
While "severe and unprecedented," Lichtman said that the problems created for Trump by the "Access Hollywood" tape and subsequent sexual assault claims did not ultimately change any of the keys.
Still, he provided "two major qualifications" to his projection, noting that "I'm not a hedger, and I've never qualified before, in 30 years of predictions."
The first qualification is that, according to Lichtman's system, "it takes six keys to count the party in power out, and they have exactly six keys," one of which requires that at least 5 percent of the popular vote go to Gary Johnson.
"He could slip below that, which would shift the prediction," Lichtman said.
The other qualification is Trump himself.
"We have never seen someone who is broadly regarded as a history-shattering, precedent-making, dangerous candidate who could change the patterns of history that have prevailed since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860," Lichtman said.
Though his system, which was developed by studying every presidential election between 1960 and 1980, has proven to be a reliable indicator of election outcomes for the past 20 years, Lichtman admitted that "this election has the potential to shatter the normal boundaries of American politics and reset everything—including, perhaps, reset the keys to the White House."

Quote
An artificial intelligence system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump  (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104059099)ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton  (http://www.cnbc.com/hillary-clinton/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104059099)in the race for the White House.
MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, founder of Indian start-up Genic.ai. It takes in 20 million data points from public platforms including Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the U.S. and then analyzes the information to create predictions.
The AI system was created in 2004, so it has been getting smarter all the time. It had already correctly predicted the results of the Democratic and Republican Primaries.
Data such as engagement with tweets or Facebook Live videos have been taken into account. The result is that Trump has overtaken the engagement numbers of Barack Obama  (http://www.cnbc.com/barack-obama/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104059099)'s peak in 2008 — the year he was elected president — by 25 percent.
Rai said that his AI system shows that the candidate in each election who had leading engagement data ended up winning the election.
"If Trump loses, it will defy the data trend for the first time in the last 12 years since Internet engagement began in full earnest," Rai wrote in a report sent to CNBC.
Currently most national polls put Clinton and the Democrats ahead by a strong margin. Rai said his data shows that Clinton should not get complacent.
But the entrepreneur admitted that there were limitations to the data in that sentiment around social media posts is difficult for the system to analyze. Just because somebody engages with a Trump tweet, it doesn't mean that they support him. Also there are currently more people on social media than there were in the three previous presidential elections.
"If you look at the primaries, in the primaries, there were immense amounts of negative conversations that happen with regards to Trump. However, when these conversations started picking up pace, in the final days, it meant a huge game opening for Trump and he won the primaries with a good margin," Rai told CNBC in a phone interview.
Using social media to predict outcomes of elections has become increasingly popular because of the amount of data available publicly. In September, Nick Beauchamp, an assistant professor of political science at Northeastern University, published a paper about his experiment applying AI to more than 100 million tweets in the 2012 election. He found that this closely mirrored the results seen in state-level polling.
"These results provide not just a tool for generating surveylike data, but also a method for investigating how what people say and think reflects, and perhaps even affects, their vote intentions," Beauchamp said.
Rai said his system would be improved by more granular data. He said that If Google was to give him access to the unique internet addresses assigned to each digital device, he could then collect data on exactly what people were thinking.
For example, Rai said if someone was searching for a YouTube video on how to vote, then looked for a video on how to vote for Trump, this could give the AI a good idea of the voter's intention. He added that there would be no privacy concerns as these internet addresses would be anonymized.
"Granularity of data will determine progressively lesser bias despite the weightage of negative or positive conversations," Rai wrote in his report, explaining how to improve the system.
MogIA is based on Mowgli, the child from Rudyard Kipling's novel "The Jungle Book." Rai said this is because his AI model learns from the environment.
"While most algorithms suffer from programmers/developer's biases, MoglA aims at learning from her environment, developing her own rules at the policy layer and develop expert systems without discarding any data," Rai said.
Correction: MogIA is based on Mowgli from the novel "The Jungle Book." An earlier version misspelled the character's name.

Quote
Donald Trump  (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104060574)spiked more than 30 percent (Unknown: TRUMP.16) in one prediction market, following Friday's news that the FBI is reviewing new emails related to Hillary Clinton  (http://www.cnbc.com/hillary-clinton/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104060574)'s personal email server. She gained back some points after initially dropping 10 percent in the same market.
Contract at Predict It track the market's chances of a particular candidate winning the presidential election next month. As Trump's contract rose and was trading at 26 cents, the Democratic presidential nominee's Predict It contract (Unknown: CLINTON.16) traded lower at 77 cents.

FBI Director James Comey sent a letter  (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104060574)to lawmakers Friday to supplement his previous testimony on the investigation related to Clinton's emails.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation," Comey said. "I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he added.

Predict It (https://www.predictit.org/) is a real-money political prediction market, or a stock market for politics. The Victoria University of Wellington project allows users to anonymously buy or sell shares of different political "contracts" to analyze market perceptions of a given event.

QuoteHillary Clinton may still be ahead in most national polls (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/29/clinton-47-trump-45-in-post-abc-tracking-poll/), but at least one expert remains convinced that Donald Trump will be our next president.
American University Professor Allen J. Lichtman, who has accurately predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1984, first forecast a victory for the GOP nominee during an interview with the Washington Post last month (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/12/this-professor-has-predicted-every-presidential-election-since-1984-hes-still-trying-to-figure-out-2016/?tid=a_inl). Granted, this was before the release of the now-infamous "Access Hollywood" tape, followed by mounting allegations (https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-miss-utah-temple-taggart-speaks-out-against-trumps-threat-to-sue-his-accusers-215203242.html) of sexual misconduct, which Trump has attempted to counter with claims that the election is rigged and that the media is conspiring against him. Meanwhile, the tense presidential debates concluded with the suggestion from Trump (https://www.yahoo.com/news/some-republicans-rip-trump-for-refusal-to-say-hell-accept-election-results-155052341.html) that he might not accept the outcome of the election if he is not the winner.
Despite all this, however, Lichtman has not wavered from his prediction.
"By the narrowest of possible margins, the keys still point to a Trump victory," he told the Post this week. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/28/professor-whos-predicted-30-years-of-presidential-elections-correctly-is-doubling-down-on-a-trump-win/)
As Lichtman noted in this latest interview, he is not a "psychic," nor does he "look into a crystal ball." Rather, his projections are based on a unique system that relies on 13 True/False questions, or "keys," to evaluate the strength of the incumbent party.
"An answer of True on these True/False questions always favors the reelection of the party in power," Lichtman explained. "And if six or more of the 13 keys are False, the party in power, the party holding the White House, is the predicted loser — any six or more."
Until last month, he said, the Democratic Party only had five keys against it. The final key that led Lichtman to make his prediction that Trump will win was "the third-party key, and that is based on an assessment that you would expect the third-party candidate, in this case the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, to get 5 percent or more of the vote."
While "severe and unprecedented," Lichtman said that the problems created for Trump by the "Access Hollywood" tape and subsequent sexual assault claims did not ultimately change any of the keys.
Still, he provided "two major qualifications" to his projection, noting that "I'm not a hedger, and I've never qualified before, in 30 years of predictions."
The first qualification is that, according to Lichtman's system, "it takes six keys to count the party in power out, and they have exactly six keys," one of which requires that at least 5 percent of the popular vote go to Gary Johnson.
"He could slip below that, which would shift the prediction," Lichtman said.
The other qualification is Trump himself.
"We have never seen someone who is broadly regarded as a history-shattering, precedent-making, dangerous candidate who could change the patterns of history that have prevailed since the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860," Lichtman said.
Though his system, which was developed by studying every presidential election between 1960 and 1980, has proven to be a reliable indicator of election outcomes for the past 20 years, Lichtman admitted that "this election has the potential to shatter the normal boundaries of American politics and reset everything—including, perhaps, reset the keys to the White House."

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 31-10-2016, 15:30:09
Krekd:

A Blow-By-Blow Account Of The Trump Campaign Disaster  (http://www.cracked.com/blog/a-blow-by-blow-account-trump-campaign-disaster/)

Quote
For those few voters who remain undecided a week before the 2016 presidential election, the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton may come down to which potential new scandal they can look past. The FBI announced on Friday that it had discovered new emails that may be "pertinent" to its investigation of Clinton's use of a private server while secretary of state. Meanwhile, new reports have emerged alleging "close ties" between Trump and the Russian government.
"If somebody has an issue with emails as opposed to someone who has an issue with shady dealings with a foreign government, perhaps, it may be hard to weigh," David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine, told Yahoo News on Tuesday.
On Monday, Corn reported that a veteran ex-spy who specializes in Russian counterintelligence told his publication he provided the FBI with a memo alleging that the Russian government "has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump)," and that there was "an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit."
The report came a day after Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a scathing letter to FBI Director James Comey (http://www.reid.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Letter-to-Director-Comey-10_30_2016.pdf), blasting his decision to publicly reveal the newly discovered Clinton emails without disclosing information the bureau may have on alleged ties between Trump's Republican presidential campaign and the Kremlin.
"In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government," Reid wrote. "The public has a right to know this information."
Trump and his campaign have repeatedly denied they have any connection with Russia.
"There's nothing wrong with a presidential candidate talking to a foreign government if he or she chooses to do so," Corn said. But it does sort of fit into this overall picture we've seen in this campaign of Russian hackers targeting Democratic targets, and leaking information in a way that harms Hillary Clinton and seems to benefit Donald Trump. And we have seen Donald Trump almost inexplicably defend if not sometimes praise [Russian President Vladimir] Putin in a way no other Republican candidate ever has."
On the campaign trail, Trump has regularly heaped praise on Putin and criticized both Clinton and President Obama for taking a hard line against the Russian strongman. Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital and noted Putin critic, told Yahoo News on Tuesday that Trump's affection for Putin defies logic.
"Nobody really knows what's behind the sort of love affair of between the two men," said Browder. "It doesn't make sense. There is no logical reason why a presidential candidate should be praising Russia unless there's information out there that we don't know about."
What we do know, Browder noted, is that Trump has "taken this very strange view that is not a Republican position, it's not an American position."
In Trump, Corn said, Russian intelligence found someone Putin can "bromance."
"I think they saw Trump — who was very, very interested and eager in the 2000s and into the 2010s to do business in Russia — as somebody they could say, 'Hey, he's a big guy in the United States. If he's friendly to us, that could come in handy," Corn mused.
The questions surrounding the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia were amplified by a pair of reports — published in  Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0) — about an FBI probe into possible electronic communications between the Trump Organization and servers connected to a Russian bank. Both reports, though, said the bureau failed to find a direct link between Trump and the Russian government, and according to the Times, an FBI investigation concluded the interaction could have been a coincidence.
"It's one more tantalizing piece that is not conclusive," Corn said, "but is certainly rather odd about an odd subject matter to begin with — Trump and Russia — in what is a very bizarre election."

QuoteEric Schmidt, the chairman of Google's parent company Alphabet, submitted a detailed draft to a key Clinton aide on 15 April 2014, outlining his ideas for a possible run for the presidency and stressing that "key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them".
  Though Schmidt did not mention it, this kind of information is the lifeblood of Google's business.
The ideas, in an email (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262) released by the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, were sent to Cheryl Mills, former deputy White House counsel to Bill Clinton. Mills forwarded it to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook and Barack Obama's 2012 campaign manager David Plouffe.
The email is one of a trove from Podesta's gmail account that was obtained by WikiLeaks. About two weeks prior to this, Podesta wrote to Mook (http://www.itwire.com/government-tech-policy/75512-schmidt-sought-top-outside-post-in-clinton-campaign.html) that he had met Schmidt and that he (Schmidt) was keen to be the "top outside adviser".



In the 15 April 2014 email, Schmidt emphasised that what he was putting forward was a draft, writing, "Here are some comments and observations based on what we saw in the 2012 campaign. If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016." It was titled "Notes for a 2016 Democratic campaign".

He divided his comments into categories such as size, structure and timing; location; the pieces of a campaign; the rules; and what he called the key things.

With regard to size, structure and timing, Schmidt wrote: "Let's assume a total budget of about US$1.5 billion, with more than 5000 paid employees and million(s) of volunteers. The entire start-up ceases operation four days after 8 November 2016."

As to location, he did not like the idea of using Washington DC as a base and was keen on low-paid workers. "The campaign headquarters will have about a thousand people, mostly young and hard-working and enthusiastic. It's important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low-paid permanent employees," he wrote.

"DC is a poor choice as it's full of distractions and interruptions. Moving the location from DC elsewhere guarantees visitors have taken the time to travel and to help."

Under "The pieces of a campaign", Schmidt said: "It's important to have strong field leadership, with autonomy and empowerment. Operations talent needs to build the offices, set up the systems, hire the people, and administer what is about 5000 people."

And, he added; "For organising tools, build a simple way to link people and activities as a workflow and let the field manage the system, all cloud based. Build a simple organising tool with a functioning back-end."

About voters, Schmidt had this to say: "Key is the development of a single record for a voter that aggregates all that is known about them. In 2016 smartphones will be used to identify, meet, and update profiles on the voter. A dynamic volunteer can easily speak with a voter and, with their email or other digital handle, get the voter videos and other answers to areas they care about ('the benefits of ACA to you' etc)."

The Alphabet chairman wrote that "a large group of campaign employees will use digital marketing methods to connect to voters, to offer information, to use social networks to spread good news, and to raise money. Partners like Blue State Digital will do much of the fund raising."

He had plenty of ideas for using the media. "New tools should be developed to measure reach and impact of paid, earned and social media. The impact of press coverage should be measurable in reach and impact, and TV effectiveness measured by attention and other surveys.

"Build tools that measure the rate and spread of stories and rumours, and model how it works and who has the biggest impact. Tools can tell us about the origin of stories and the impact of any venue, person or theme. Connect polling into this in some way. Find a way to do polling online and not on phones."

Schmidt also wanted a score computed for each voter, ranking the probability of them casting the "right vote".

"Analytics can model demographics, social factors and many other attributes of the needed voters," he wrote. "It should be possible to link the voter records in Van (a database) with upcoming databases from companies like Comcast and others for media measurement purposes."

But despite all the complexity, Schmidt wanted costs kept to the bare minimum: "It's important that all the players in the campaign work at cost and there be no special interests in the financing structure. This means that all vendors work at cost and there is a separate auditing function to ensure no one is profiting unfairly from the campaign," he wrote.

And finally, outlining what he said the key things, Schmidt listed the following:

    a) early build of an integrated development team and recognition that this is an entire system that has to be managed as such;
    b) decisions to exclusively use cloud solutions for scalability, and choice of vendors and any software from 2012 that will be re-used;
    c) the role of the smartphone in the hands of a volunteer. The smartphone manages the process, updates the database, informs the citizen, and allows fundraising and recruitment of volunteers (on Android and iPhone); and
    d) early and continued focus of qualifying fundraising dollars to build the field, and build all the tools. Outside money will be plentiful and perfect for TV use. A smart media mix tool tells all we need to know about media placement, TV versus other media and digital media.

Quote
Wall Street's long-running view that  Hillary Clinton  (http://www.cnbc.com/hillary-clinton/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104074120) would easily become the next president has been replaced by a new fear that  Donald Trump  (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104074120) could win, and it probably won't be a pretty picture for stocks if he does.
Bond yields have moved lower and so have stocks, as the markets have begun to react to the possibility of a Trump victory in the last several days. On Thursday, the S&P 500 (^GSPC (https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/q?s=%5Egspc)) was up slightly, after falling 13 points Wednesday, to close at the key support level of 2,097.
The work of two economics professors may provide a glimpse of how the stock market might react if Donald Trump were elected. They studied the predictions market, including PredictIt.org (https://predictit.org/Browse/Group/67/National) and the reaction in the financial markets to events around the election. One of the economists says their findings (https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-do-financial-markets-think-of-the-2016-election/) point to a sharp immediate sell-off if Trump wins and a slight rally if Clinton wins. The amount of the rally or sell-off depends on the predicted outcome.
"If we were to go in 70/30 [for Clinton], and we think the market is 10 percent higher under Clinton than Trump, if Clinton wins it should be up about 3 percent and if Trump wins, it should go down 7 percent," said Eric Zitzewitz, economics professor at Dartmouth College. He and Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan studied the market effect of the first debate in a Brookings paper. Clinton's odds in the prediction markets had been closer to 80 percent, and at that level, a Trump victory would have triggered an 8 to 10 percent sell-off, he said.
The market's nervousness picked up after the  FBI last Friday revealed a new investigation into Clinton's email server  (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/doj-says-it-is-working-with-fbi-to-examine-new-clinton-related-emails.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104074120), this time involving her longtime aide Huma Abedin and her husband Anthony Weiner, who is  under federal investigation in a different matter  (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/anthony-weiner-investigation-prompts-latest-clinton-email-bombshell.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104074120).
"There's no question in my mind that the markets have not priced in a Trump win, only in the most cursory way. They are starting to price in the potential for a Trump win. That process started last Friday," said Tony Roth, CIO of Wilmington Trust. "We haven't seen an up day in the markets since then. We haven't seen any calamitous days either."
Strategists agree there would be a sell-off with a Trump win, but then the views diverge on how the market would trade after that.
Ethan Harris, head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said he would expect a sell-off if Trump wins, then an L-shaped move in the equity market, because of the period of policy uncertainty. "From the action in the stock market, the equity market is worried about a Trump victory, about the uncertainty of policy under Trump. Normally the equity market responds positively to a Republican doing well in the election," he said. "In this election, I think the dominant story is about uncertainty after the election, and a status quo election means no shock, everything is the same, no big news and presumably the equity market sails through the election if it's a split government."
Markets had been looking for a win by Clinton but also  Republicans  (http://www.cnbc.com/republicans/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104074120) holding the House and possibly Senate. The idea is that that would create gridlock and many of her policies could not be enacted.
"Under a Trump victory, you probably get some kind of reaction in the equity market, and if it's a strong reaction, it could affect the Fed," he said. Harris said he would expect to modestly lower his GDP forecast if Trump wins. "To a large degree, we're going to look at the market's response as a gauge of the underlying uncertainty shock," Harris said.
Bruce Bittles, chief investment strategist at Baird, has a different view and he believes a Trump victory could result in a V-shaped move in the market, as Wall Street reflects later on positive tax changes and the looser regulatory environment Trump supports.
"What I think happens is we get a repeat of what happened after Brexit. The market initially goes down and then goes up," he said. He said with a Clinton win, the market would rally but not as much as it historically has when an incumbent party wins. "It depends now on how a Democratic win is already built into the market. If that's the case, then I would say a Republican win would mean a sharper down, but then a sharper up to follow," Bittles said.
Roth said if the odds of a Clinton victory continue to move lower, so will the stock market. "If Clinton wins, you get a big relief rally. If Trump wins, then you get a big sell-off. I think that from where we are today, until the bottom of that sell-off, you are looking at a good 10 percent easily. I think whether it goes deeper than that depends on the temperament that Trump displays after the election," Roth said. "I think Clinton will have the upper hand from an electoral position, but it's not going to be like a 75/25, it could be 60/40 [chance], and the more it converges, the more the sell-off ... the closer this gets, the more steep the sell-off is going to be."
PredictIt.org put the odds for a Clinton win at 66 percent Thursday, down from a high of 85 percent Oct. 25. The odds had been as low as 60 percent in September.
Zitzewitz said he studied the reaction of markets when a tape was revealed in which  Trump made lewd comments about women  (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/07/trumps-shocking-crude-comments-on-women-leave-pence-reeling.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104074120), and also the reaction Friday when the FBI news broke. The market moves confirmed the study he did after the first debate of the prediction market and financial markets. He said if the odds shifted in the prediction market to 60 percent for Clinton, a Trump victory could mean a 6 percent sell-off in the S&P futures the night the results are released. He said his study did not go into what would happen after the initial reaction, and it would react to other events like the concession speech and other developments.
Roth said he expects the market to remain choppy and possibly sell off through Election Day, Tuesday. "The Trump chances of winning is not one out of 100. It's probably three out of 10 and likely to move higher ... that could cause a real panic in markets," he said. Roth said markets could remain under pressure if Trump wins, especially if does not surround himself with credible advisors.
Trump could also take action against U.S. trade partners, declaring them in violation of trade agreements, and that would upset markets, especially since there could be retaliatory action, Roth said. He said that could  cause a downward spiral in trade  (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/19/trumps-trade-policies-would-send-us-into-recession-study-says.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104074120), which could hurt weaker economies.
"If we have a Clinton outcome, we're pretty constructive on the outlook for the global economy. We think we're in the final chapter of monetary insanity," he said. He said easing by global central banks was necessary but now it's no longer effective and a move away from it would be positive.

Quote from: дејан on 04-11-2016, 11:05:49
готово је! лилит је прешла на конспираси дарк сајд!

JUST NOW: Donald Trump was just rushed off stage during his Nevada campaign rally:

Trump thanks the secret service as he returns to the stage after being rushed off in Nevada

Quote
Donald Trump (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/donald-trump.htm) tore into President Obama for yelling at a protester during a rally in support of Hillary Clinton (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/whitehouse/hillary-clinton.htm)'s candidacy.
Only problem...Obama was defending the protester's right to speak out.
"He was talking to the protester screaming at him," Trump said. "If I spoke the way Obama spoke to that protester, they would say "he became unhinged.'"

President Obama Defends Trump Protester at Clinton Rally (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-defends-trump-protester-clinton-rally/story?id=43313064)

During the event in Fayetteville, NC, Obama was confronted by a protester carrying a Trump placard, sparking an uproar from the crowd.
But Obama chastised the crowd, telling them to "sit down and be quiet for a second." The exchange with the crowd went on for several minutes.
"You've got an older gentleman who is supporting his candidate. He's not doing nothing. You don't have to worry about him. This is what I mean about folks not being focused," Obama said.
"First of all, we live in a country that respects free speech," Obama said. "Second of all, it looks like maybe he might have served in our military and we ought to respect that. Third of all, he was elderly and we got to respect our elders. And fourth of all, don't boo. Vote!"
Trump bashed Obama during his event in Hershey, Pa.
"And see what happened they never moved the camera and he spent so much time screaming at this protester," Trump told his crowd. "And frankly it was a disgrace and he shouldn't be there to start off."

Quote from: ridiculus on 06-11-2016, 17:43:37
Većina pisaca je protiv Trampa, kao i Holivud. Možda ne toliko za Hilari, koliko protiv Trampa.

Quote from: mac on 07-11-2016, 16:06:27
Pametan niko, ali neko mudar? Ko zna...