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

Quote from: Ugly MF on 17-12-2016, 20:17:15
Koji su ovo paćenici, zezaju trampa zarad pogrešno ukucanih slovca.
Kakva nebuloza. Kolko su se ove Klinton-Obama liberalni jadovi nabrukali optužujući i Putina i Ruse za Hakove....
jadno i mizerno, vidi se da su Vučićeva sabraća.
Na njihovu žalos' Trumpetat će im ovaj 8 godina, blago njima :)

Quote from: scallop on 22-12-2016, 15:32:08
Otto Muck je računao da je Jukatanski asteroid izazvao 3000 godina mraka u Evropi, pa između ostalog i belu rasu.

Quote from: scallop on 22-12-2016, 18:04:27
Mogao sam da se uhvatim nekog drugog slučaja. Nisam očekivao da će uneti pometnju. Izvinjavam se. Radi se o prirodnim katastrofama i posledicama. Otto Muck je samo jednu prirodnu katastrofu razradio do detalja i još mi je sveža u sećanju. Dakle, prirodne katastrofe imaju daleko opsežnije posledice od ugljendioksidne. Vidljive su posle svake jače erupcije vulkana na Islandu. Onaj ko u Kalifornijskoj raselini ima Napa dolinu, a u Jeloustonu gaji turizam, nema prostora za globalno otopljavanje. Sutra može da im se priča završi.

Quote from: tomat on 22-12-2016, 18:34:51

šta to zapravo znači? da ne treba voditi računa o emisiji ugljen-dioksida, jer sutra može da se javi neka prirodna katastrofa koja svo vođenje računa može da učini beznačajnim?

"Now in all states there are three elements: One class is very rich, another very poor, and a third in a mean. . . . But a

Quote
Donald Trump is speaking with two voices on trade, one of the hot-button issues that propelled him to victory on Election Day.
Trump, the incoming president, alarmed free traders with protectionist rhetoric during the campaign, vowing to impose tariffs on Chinese imports and invoke other punitive measures if the nation's trade deficit doesn't improve. He has now backed that rhetoric by naming economist Peter Navarro (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-picks-china-hawk-lead-white-house-trade-224827614--finance.html) to a new group called the White House National Trade Council. Navarro, a business professor at the University of California, Irvine, is the author of "Death by China" and many other books and articles claiming that Chinese mercantilism is decimating the US economy. He co-authored candidate Trump's economic plan and fueled many of his protectionist ideas.
Business groups hate Trump's threat to shake up US trading relationships, since that would likely provoke retaliatory measures by China and other trading partners subject to new US restrictions. Most Fortune 1000 companies have some exposure to the Chinese economy. Navarro's ideas, if implemented, could shut down an important source of growth for those businesses and thousands of smaller companies dependent on them.
But the hawkish Navarro is an outlier, even in the Trump administration. Other Trump nominees are more comfortable with free trade and loath to risk a trade war with China, or anybody. Private-equity billionaire Wilbur Ross, Trump's pick to head the Commerce Department, insists there will be no trade wars (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trumps-commerce-nominee-wilbur-ross-there-arent-going-to-be-trade-wars-154945061.html) and says the main effort will be urging other countries to buy more US products. Ross has personally benefited from relatively free access to the Chinese market, and he knows how tit-for-tat sanctions would hurt American companies and the US economy.
Trump's Treasury nominee, Steve Mnuchin, is a Goldman Sachs alum and Wall Street establishmentarian who seems unlikely to threaten the global economic order that has enriched the shareholder class. And Trump's pick to be ambassador to China, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, comes form a state that has benefited from open trade with China (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-just-got-friendlier-toward-china-164326575.html) and other countries through agricultural exports that account for 22% of the jobs in Iowa.
So Trump has set up a dichotomy on trade within his own economic team. The Trump transition team says Navarro's trade council will generate "innovative strategies in trade negotiations," study the evolution of the manufacturing sector and find better ways to match blue-collar workers with available jobs.
On paper, such councils are subordinate to Cabinet-level officials such as the Commerce and Treasury secretaries. So Navarro will be an adviser while Ross and Mnuchin will be policymakers more likely to determine final outcomes. Trump, of course, will be the ultimate decider, and Navarro or anybody else inside or outside the White House could end up being more influential than Ross or Mnuchin, if he or she gets Trump's ear at the right time.
But Trump may be setting his economic team up for internal dissension if Navarro and his council feel ignored, or if Trump's Cabinet picks feel undermined by lower-ranking White House operatives. Few administrations escape first-year palace intrigue as various appointees jockey for power, and Trump's freewheeling, unconventional approach could generate more fireworks than usual. A year from now, whoever is still around can probably be declared the winner.

Quote

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says the Russian government's interference with the United States election went far beyond the now highly publicized hacks of Democratic email accounts, which were merely one part of a multilayered campaign of propaganda and deception.
The intelligence leader outlined various methods wielded by Moscow to interfere with U.S. institutions during Thursday morning testimony on cyberattacks before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The testimony comes at a point of tension between the U.S. intelligence community and Donald Trump. The president-elect, set to meet with intelligence brass on Friday, has repeatedly cast doubt on the U.S. government's conclusion that Russian state-sponsored cyberattacks sought to influence the election.
At the hearing, Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., asked Clapper if he could address not only classified information but also the relevance of publicly available information in seeing the full picture of Russia's activities.
"While there has been a lot of focus on the hacking, this is actually part of a multifaceted campaign that the Russians mounted," Clapper told the committee.
Clapper pointed to the Kremlin-funded TV channel RT, previously called Russia Today. "Of course RT, which is heavily supported, funded by the Russian government, was very, very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system," he continued.
He said Russia would exploit any crack in the United States' integrity — such as the nation's alleged hypocrisy about human rights — through social media, fake news, propaganda and so on.
The totality of Russia's effort, regardless of its ultimate impact, was a concern to Clapper as both an intelligence official and as a U.S. citizen, he said.
Earlier in the testimony, Clapper said the campaign against the U.S. also entailed the kind of "classical propaganda" that Russia has long used, especially when "promulgating disinformation."
Marcel Lettre, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, said the U.S. needs to look at ways to "impose costs" against adversaries for such actions on a case-by-case basis as they arise. The U.S. can work to deter and respond to attacks through methods like President Obama's recent sanctions, but they can be much broader as well, he said.
"From the military's perspective, we're concerned not only with Russia's cyberhacking but also with a range of aggressive actions by Russia across multiple regions of the globe. So we look to impose costs on Russia by a range of measures across multiple regions in partnership with our allies, through NATO, where we can to push back Russian actions and deter future actions."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., did not appear too impressed with this "case-by-case" tactic. "It's not a strategy," he said.
Earlier, McCain suggested that if Russia had in fact succeeded in altering the outcome of an election that it would constitute an attack on the United States. He asked Clapper if he agreed with that assessment.
"Whether or not that constitutes an act of war I think is a very heavy policy call that I don't believe the intelligence community should make," Clapper replied, "but would carry in my view great gravity."

Quote

Spending less by getting rid of Obamacare could end up costing a whole lot more.
Up to 3 million jobs in the health sector and other areas would be lost if certain key provisions of the Affordable Care Act are repealed by Congress, a new report said Thursday. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2017/Jan/Repealing-Federal-Health-Reform)
At the same time, ending those provisions could lead to a whopping $1.5 trillion reduction in gross state product from 2019 through 2023, according to the study.
"Repealing key parts of the ACA could trigger massive job losses and a slump in consumer and business spending that would affect all sectors of state economies," said Leighton Ku, director of the Center for Health Policy Research and professor at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.
Ku is the lead author of the report (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2017/Jan/Repealing-Federal-Health-Reform), which was issued by the Milken Institute and the Commonwealth Fund.
The report comes as President-elect  Donald Trump  (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104202185) and the new Congress are moving toward repealing parts of the ACA through the budget reconciliation process.
"The immediate and most visible effect of ACA repeal would be the loss of coverage and access to care for millions of people who have gained insurance because of the law," said Sara Collins, vice president for health-care coverage and access at the Commonwealth Fund.
"This study points to even larger potential economic effects that would be detrimental to the health and well-being of millions more," Collins said.
The estimate of job and state product losses are based on a scenario in which Congress defunds federal subsidies that most Obamacare customers receive to help lower their monthly insurance premium costs, and also gets rid of funding to cover adults who became newly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA.
Repealing both provisions would save the federal government $140 billion in health-care spending, the report found. And as that funding spigot dried up, it would lead to job losses and a drop in gross state product, the report said.
The study notes that most of the federal funding for Obamacare flows to hospitals, health clinics, pharmacies and other medical providers, who in turn hire and pay staff and purchase goods and services.
The biggest job losses would occur in California, with 334,000 lost jobs, Florida, with 181,000 lost jobs, Texas, with 175,000 lost positions, and Pennysylvania, New York and Ohio, each of which would lose more than 125,000 jobs, the report estimates.
One-third of the job losses would be in the health-care sector, according to the report. The remaining two-thirds of job losses are expected to come from construction, real estate, retail, finance and insurance.
As with other reports estimating the effects of Obamacare repeal, the economic downsides could be mitigated, or completely offset by a replacement plan for the ACA.
But so far, Trump and the Republican-led Congress have not committed to such a plan. So researchers have been unable to estimate the ultimate effects of a replacement plan.

QuotePresident-elect Donald Trump is just a week away from taking office. From the start of his campaign, he has promised big changes to the US immigration system. For both Trump's advisers and members of Congress, the H-1B visa program, which allows many foreign workers to fill technology jobs, is a particular focus.
One major change to that system is already under discussion: making it harder for companies to use H-1B workers to replace Americans by simply giving the foreign workers a raise. The "Protect and Grow American Jobs Act," (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/170/text) introduced last week by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. and Scott Peters, D-Calif., would significantly raise the wages of workers who get H-1B visas. If the bill becomes law, the minimum wage paid to H-1B workers would rise to at least $100,000 annually, and be adjusted it for inflation. Right now, the minimum is $60,000.
The sponsors say that would go a long way toward fixing some of the abuses of the H-1B program, which critics say is currently used to simply replace American workers with cheaper, foreign workers. In 2013, the top nine companies acquiring H-1B visas were technology outsourcing firms, according to an analysis (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hira%20Testimony.pdf) by a critic of the H-1B program. (The 10th is Microsoft.) The thinking goes that if minimum H-1B salaries are brought closer to what high-skilled tech employment really pays, the economic incentive to use it as a worker-replacement program will drop off.
The H-1B program isn't supposed to replace any US workers at all. Rather, it's meant to help US companies get skilled labor they can't hire domestically. But critics of the program say abuse has been widespread and point to examples of high-profile mass layoffs in which American IT workers were sometimes ordered to train their foreign replacements. Last year, the Los Angeles Times reported that Southern California Edison had laid off hundreds of IT workers and filled their positions with workers from two Indian outsourcing firms, Tata Consulting and Infosys. Disney was also accused of replacing American IT workers with H-1B workers from India; two of the Disney IT workers filed a lawsuit against their former employer (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/ex-disney-it-workers-sue-after-being-forced-to-train-their-own-h-1b-replacements/) last year.
"We need to ensure we can retain the world's best and brightest talent," said Issa in a statement about the bill (https://issa.house.gov/news-room/press-releases/issa-introduces-bill-stop-outsourcing-american-jobs). "At the same time, we also need to make sure programs are not abused to allow companies to outsource and hire cheap foreign labor from abroad to replace American workers."
The H-1B program offers 65,000 visas each fiscal year, with an additional 20,000 reserved for foreign workers who have advanced degrees from US colleges and universities. The visas are awarded by lottery each year. Last year, the government received more than 236,000 applications (https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-completes-h-1b-cap-random-selection-process-fy-2017) for those visas.
End to arbitrage The case that H-1B has been used as a cost-cutting program was made directly to Congress by Prof. Ronil Hira of Howard University, who testified about the Southern California Edison layoffs. Hira submitted testimony (http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Hira%20Testimony.pdf) (PDF) claiming that SCE IT specialists and engineers get paid an average wage of $110,466, while H-1B workers at Infosys and Tata get average annual wages of $70,882 and $65,565, respectively.
Hira suggested raising the wages of H-1B workers to "clean up some of the most flagrant abuses." He also suggested increased enforcement by the Secretary of Labor and random audits of H-1B employers, added safeguards which haven't yet seen a champion in Congress.
Harj Taggar, founder of tech recruiting firm TripleByte, told Ars in an interview that outsourcing firms' dominance of the system has discouraged his clients, typically small to mid-sized startups, from participating in the visa lottery.
That could change, though, if minimum wages for H-1B visas are raised. Outsourcing firms might find it more difficult to profit from the difference between the market wage and what their workers are typically paid, leaving more visas for others.
"You'll start seeing Bay Area technology companies say, if the chances [of getting a visa through the lottery] have gone from 5 percent to 30 percent now that there's less competition, you'll see more engage in the program," said Taggar. "If you raise the minimum wage requirement to $100,000, that will still fall below the average that engineers in particular, in particular those who have been working for a few years, will command in salary."
Reuters reported yesterday (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-immigration-tech-idUSKBN14W1CZ?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtechnologyNews+%28Reuters+Technology+News%29) that one senior Trump adviser is considering a more radical change to the H-1B system: doing away with the visa lottery altogether and just selling visas to the highest bidder. The news service reported that Trump seemed open to changing the H-1B system at a meeting last month with top tech CEOs, but he was "searching for a middle ground." At the end of the day, the president-elect is "not hostile" to the H-1B program, according to one source, but may choose to raise the cost of getting the visas.

QuoteFun fact: Every four years, an inaugural luncheon is held for the newly instated president by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. The Committee's website (http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/about/luncheon) explains that the luncheons provide an opportunity for speeches, gift presentations, and toasts. No matter how you feel about the incoming president, this luncheon is happening, just as is has since 1879, so we might as well discuss what kind of food will be served.

According to GrubStreet (http://www.grubstreet.com/2017/01/the-inaugural-lunch-menu-includes-lobster-cheap-champagne.html), Donald Trump and guests will be served a seafood course of Maine lobster and Gulf shrimp with a saffron sauce and peanut crumbles. Next, he'll get grilled Seven Hills Angus beef in a dark chocolate and juniper jus. The beef will be served with a side of potato gratin. For dessert, chocolate soufflé with cherry vanilla ice cream. Since the meal is held to honor president-elect Donald Trump, each part will, of course, be eaten with a fork (http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/donald-trump-eats-kfc-knife-fork/). Even the champagne. (Okay, okay maybe not the champagne.)

Though there are countless differences between the president-elect and President Obama, their inaugural menus actually look pretty similar. The 57th inaugural luncheon (http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/about/luncheon/57th-inaugural-luncheon), held in 2013, also had a first-course seafood dish, a main meat dish, and a dessert. Specifically, the Obamas feasted on steamed lobster and New England clam chowder, hickory grilled bison accompanied by a red potato horseradish cake and Hudson Valley apple pie with sour cream ice cream.

You can explore the menus of the last nine inaugural luncheons, here (http://www.inaugural.senate.gov/about/luncheon). You'll learn plenty of strangely fascinating presidential food facts — like, that in 1985, Reagan ate veal medallions — and it will be a great distraction from whatever it is you happen to be procrastinating.

Quote

Treasury secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin failed to disclose about $100 million in assets and a number of business directorships to the Senate until the night before his confirmation hearing.
Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee jumped on this mistake during Mnuchin's confirmation hearing, saying that he was attempting to hide assets from his disclosure forms.
Among the assets that Mnuchin failed to disclose included real estate in New York City, Los Angeles, and Mexico.
Additionally, Mnuchin failed to disclose his role as director of a number of investment funds including a subsidiary of his hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands and another in Anguilla.
Democrats used the disclosure to question both Mnuchin's honesty as well as his qualification as a representative of the American public, contrasting him with Trump's repeated promise to "drain the swamp."
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden said that Mnuchin failed to disclose these holdings until Wyden's staff brought them to the nominee's attention.
"This was not self-corrected. The only reason it came to light was my staff found it and told you that it had to be corrected," said Wyden, the ranking member on the committee.
Mnuchin defended himself by saying that the omission was due to the complexities of the disclosure forms.
"I think as you all can appreciate filling out these government forms is quite complicated," said Mnuchin. "There were many things I expected in this job including having to sell everything, but the amount of paperwork in filling out the forms ... was quite a job."
Mnuchin went on to say that "any oversight was unintentional" in regard to omitted assets.
Additionally, Mnuchin defended the Cayman Island and Anguilla holding companies by saying the shell companies were created for his hedge fund to allow certain types of investments for pension funds and nonprofits. The Treasury nominee said he did not benefit from the setup.
"Let me just be clear again: I did not use a Cayman Island entity in any way to avoid taxes for myself," said Mnuchin. "I paid US taxes on all that income. So there was no benefit to me from the Cayman entity."
The rest of the hearing was equally as contentious with Democrats and some Republicans hitting Mnuchin for foreclosures (http://www.businessinsider.com/dean-heller-steve-mnuchin-2017-1) at a bank owned by his fund, Trump's foreign investments (http://www.businessinsider.com/mccaskill-grills-treasury-secretary-steven-mnuchin-on-trump-foreign-debt-2017-1), and regulation of banks. (http://www.businessinsider.com/mnuchin-says-us-might-need-a-21st-century-glass-steagall-2017-1)
This is also the second day in a row a Trump nominee was questioned for investment disclosures. Trump's Health and Human Services secretary nominee Tom Price was questioned about his investments (http://www.businessinsider.com/tom-price-hhs-secretary-confirmation-stock-deal-questions-2017-1) in healthcare companies during his time in Congress during his testimony on Wednesday.

QuoteGeorge Soros  (http://www.cnbc.com/george-soros/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104229019) thinks President-elect  Donald Trump  (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104229019) will fail — and that will be just fine with the billionaire investor and supporter of progressive causes.
"I personally am convinced that he is going to fail," Soros told Bloomberg during an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Failure will come "not because of people like me who would like him to fail, but because his ideas that guide him are inherently self-contradictory and the contradictions are already embodied by his advisors."
Soros spoke less than 24 hours before Trump, himself a billionaire businessman and political agitator,  &doc=104229019"> takes the oath of office as the 45th president  (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000585720&__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cvideo&par=yahoo%3Cbr%20class=). Trump's Cabinet picks have been undergoing  a sometimes-grueling round of confirmation hearings  (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18/commerce-nominee-wilbur-ross-trade-partners-have-to-play-by-our-rules.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104229019) on Capitol Hill, though it's not clear if any will be rejected.
During the 2016 campaign, Soros donated close to $20 million to various causes, including more than $10.5 million to Trump's opponent, Democrat  Hillary Clinton  (http://www.cnbc.com/hillary-clinton/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104229019), according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
He has been unrelenting in his criticism of Trump, and unloaded on him again during the Davos interview.
"I have described him as an impostor and a con man and a would-be dictator," Soros said. "But he's only a would-be dictator because I'm confident that the Constitution and the institutions of the United States are strong enough. ... He would be a dictator if he could get away with it, but he won't be able to."
Trump's unexpected win in November hurt Soros beyond politics and ideology — he is believed  to have lost more than $1 billion in trades  (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/billionaire-george-soros-reportedly-lost-nearly-1-billion-during-trump-rally.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104229019) he made that would have benefited if the market went down. Instead, a monthlong rally after the election cost Soros big.
However, he said Thursday he still believes the market is headed lower.
"Uncertainty is the enemy of long-term investment," Soros said. "I don't think the markets are going to do very well. Right now they are still celebrating. But when reality comes in," his bets against the market "will prevail."
Soros said Trump will act as a divisive figure because "anyone who disagrees with him is not really part of the people."
"It is impossible to predict exactly how Trump is going to act, because he hasn't actually thought it through," Soros said. "He didn't expect to win. He was surprised. He was engaged in building his brand and improving it by his success in attracting crowds. It was really only when he got elected that he started to seriously think whatever he is going to do."

QuoteAmerica is getting what it ordered on Election Day.If anyone was expecting an evolution from Donald Trump the candidate to Donald Trump the president, never mind.
The new president delivered an inaugural address Friday that was straight from his campaign script — to the delight or dismay of different subsets of Americans.
Trump gave nods to unity and began with kind words for Barack and Michelle Obama, but pivoted immediately to a searing indictment of the status quo and the Obama years.
Presidents past have promised an American Covenant, a New Frontier, a Great Society.
Trump sketched a vision of "American carnage."
Then he promised to end it with a nationalist "America First" approach to governing.
It was a speech for Trump's supporters, but maybe not those who voted for somebody else.
When Trump told the crowd on the National Mall and watching from afar that "everyone is listening to you now" and spoke of a "historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before," he seemed to harking back to his voters.
"At some point, there has got to be a transference to being the leader of all the people," said Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, though, heard "exactly the speech Trump needed to give to be the kind of president he wants to be."
"In a very workmanlike way, he was reasserting precisely the themes that had gotten him elected," Gingrich said. "He is trying to communicate how he sees the next few years from his perspective: It will basically be pitched again and again as the people vs. the establishment, and it will be constant striving to reform the system."
In his 16-minute inaugural, Trump spoke in grim terms of families trapped in poverty, shuttered factories dotting the landscape like tombstones, of rampant crime, drugs and gangs.
It was an echo of the bleak message he delivered at the Republican National Convention — and likewise short on specifics for how he will solve those problems.
His pledge to make things better came wrapped as a nostalgic paean to better days long gone.
"America will start winning again, winning like never before," the new president said. "We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams."
Nostalgia works for some Americans, but not all.
"If you're an African-American, 50 years ago doesn't seem so great to you," said Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a frequent Trump critic. "You need some kind of vision for a future America."
The new president "amplifies resentments" in the name of pursuing change, said Gerson. "It's always us vs. them."
Trump did directly take on the nation's modern security challenges by giving a blanket promise to "eradicate completely from the face of the earth" the scourge of "Radical Islamic Terrorism" — a capitalized phrase that the Obama administration refused even to utter.
But he's given few details about how he'll do that.
Granted, inaugurals aren't meant to be wonky policy speeches. But they must be backed by a plan of action to have oomph.
As the new president took office, whitehouse.gov was filling up with policy pages that were long on broad goals and light on specifics.
And the question marks about his policies on taxes, trade, immigration, terrorism and more are magnified by the sometimes contradictory policy pronouncements coming from his Cabinet nominees.
The uncertainty about Trump also stems from his own shifts in tone.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said Trump's luncheon speech in the Capitol immediately after his inaugural address was considerably more conciliatory.
"When he's in front of a crowd, he's going to roar populism, and then when he's inside the Capitol, he's going to buddy up to folks and say we can all work together," Murphy said. "The question is, where does governance land? Where his inaugural speech was, or where his lunch speech was?"
Going into Friday's inaugural address, Trump already had a lot of work to do to rally the nation behind him.
Just 40 percent of Americans have a favorable view of him, far lower than any other president-elect's popularity since at least the 1970s, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll.
And if he can't deliver on the bold promises of his inaugural, he'll lose those he does have in his corner.
"The speech is notable for laying down very specific markers by which his presidency will be assessed," says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "The categorical nature of those markers is going to be problematic for him."
Gingrich put it more bluntly:
"If he keeps us safe and creates jobs, he will almost certainly be re-elected. If he can't do those things, he's in deep trouble."

Quote from: дејан on 26-01-2017, 15:30:27
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cessor.de%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Faliens.gif&hash=12c9c2ae7b263431cfa426195708d74077ec706f)

QuoteThe Mexican government had no immediate reaction to a tweet by U.S. President Donald Trump that appeared aimed at canceling a planned Jan. 31 meeting with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto.Trump tweeted Thursday that "If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting" in Washington D.C.
Trump said Wednesday he would start building a U.S.-Mexico border wall and vowed to make Mexico pay for it. Mexico opposes the wall and has repeatedly said it won't pay for it.
Mexican officials said there was no immediate reaction to Trump's tweet. Officials said Wednesday Mexico was "considering" canceling.
Former foreign relations secretary Jorge Castaneda told local media "Pena Nieto has no other choice but to say 'I'm not going.'"
Trump's unusual, voluble and unpredictable style appeared to catch Mexico's normally quiet and cautious diplomacy off guard.
Finance Secretary Jose Antonio Meade told Grupo Formula radio that "I think that, in general, diplomacy is not conducted via Twitter."
"The foreign relations secretary is involved up there, having meetings up there, and we'll have to see what comes out of that, what report they send to the president and what conclusions they arrive at from all that," said Meade.

Quote
During his presidential campaign,  Donald Trump  (http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104242120) promised not only to 'build a wall' to seal the southern U.S. border, but to make  Mexico  (http://www.cnbc.com/mexico/?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104242120) pay for it, at a cost of some $10 billion to $38 billion. Mexico on Thursday reiterated it's refusal to foot the bill.
Yet, a market-based immigration policy allowing Central Americans who passed a background check to purchase work visas at market rates (instead of paying thousands to human smugglers) could generate revenues for the federal government in excess of $40 billion, or more than enough to pay for that wall. You can read the details  i  (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/forget-mexico-illegal-immigrants-can-pay-for-the-wall-commentary.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104242120)n  an earlier article  (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/forget-mexico-illegal-immigrants-can-pay-for-the-wall-commentary.html?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cinline%7Cstory%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=104242120) I wrote for CNBC.
But here's the best part: With a market-based visa system, President Trump could materially end illegal immigration within a month or two, even without a wall. Here's how it would work.
Illegal immigration is a variety of black market. Black markets always arise as the direct result of government policy, when governments either cap prices or restrict volumes. For example, during Super Storm Sandy, a number of East Coast governors put price caps on scarce gasoline, creating a black market within a matter of hours.
Young men with gasoline cans would stand in line at gas stations and wait their turn. As soon as they filled up, they would walk around the corner and sell the gasoline to motorists at a 200 percent profit. When governments allowed market prices to prevail again, black market activity disappeared just as fast. The black market existed only because of government policy.
In the case of immigration, the sorry truth is that the government provides only about one third as many visas as needed by U.S. businesses, primarily in agriculture and construction, even as these businesses are unable to find Americans to fill these jobs. President Trump argues that Americans want 'good jobs'.
Well, illegal immigrants do not get 'good jobs'. They are taking the jobs no one else wants. This includes almost anything outdoors (not involving a football), for example picking fruits and vegetables, dairy and other agriculture, construction, lawn work, and indoors, house cleaning. Most of these jobs pay around the minimum wage, and often involve travel and difficult working conditions. Very few Americans aspire to these jobs anymore—that's how we know we're a rich country.
But the need for labor hasn't gone away. Indeed, about half of the farm workers in California are undocumented. Illegals are not a nice-to-have, they are an essential component of the agricultural business model in the U.S.
Now, Mexicans have no love manual outdoor labor, either. But the reality is that US farm work pays about four times as much as those Mexicans could make in Mexico. If lawyers or investment bankers in New York could earn four times their wage picking strawberries in Guadalajara, there would be no shortage of recruits.
The black market in labor therefore exists because certain businesses in the U.S. are desperate for low-end labor and because unskilled Mexican workers can earn multiplies of their income by coming to the U.S. The U.S. government has, for decades, actively tried to prevent these two sides from coming together by enforcing the border. After all, if the border were open, conservatives argue, we would be inundated with Mexicans. And that's absolutely true.
However, if we issued an appropriate number of visas, then we would cover domestic needs and Mexicans would no longer have an incentive to jump the border. We could do that by selling visas at market rates to eligible Mexicans and other Central Americans and monitoring the prices of visas and field wages to get the number more or less right.
The system does not have to be perfect. As long as Central Americans can buy visas at will and U.S. employers can obtain low-end labor on demand—even if it may be a bit costly at some times—both Mexicans and the U.S. businesses sectors would have an incentive to use the system.
This would eliminate the need to jump the border. The decision to come to the U.S. would come down to economics. An eligible Mexican could go online—in Mexico—and check available U.S. jobs and the cost of a visa. If the numbers work, they could apply for the job and buy a visa. If not, they stay home.
If entering the U.S. legally is easy—as long as the applicant has passed a background check and has the money to pay for the visa—then virtually every Central American migrant will be using a visa. Why risk your life in the desert if you can pay a fee and hop on a bus? It is the ease of complying with the law—not enforcement—which guarantees compliance. But once compliance is universal, companies will not hire workers who fail to comply. If employers can obtain documented labor, they will avoid illegals.
Undocumented immigrants will find their situation untenable. Not only will employers will shun them, President Trump can declare that any immigrant caught crossing the border illegally will be ineligible to purchase a visa in the future. Border jumping will be quickly transformed into the single worst way to enter the U.S.
If legal entry for a fee is easy and border jumping disqualifies an applicant from the legal labor market, then illegal entry by economic migrants will all but cease. A wall will not be necessary. To make it all happen, Trump needs only signal his credible support for a fee-based visa system and tweet that crossing illegally will disqualify an applicant from obtaining a visa. If Mexicans believe a reasonable market-based visa system is coming in relatively short order, many will defer a difficult, risky and illegal desert crossing. It's that simple.
Many Americans regard President Trump with a mixture of hope and fear. If the President chooses to focus on making deals, on applying business principles to policy problems, he could be a great success. He has the flexibility to look at programs in terms beyond the sterile left-right vocabulary which has ossified the Washington political class.
Want to work in my backyard? You've got to pay an entry fee. Any businessman could understand that. So can any immigrant. A market-based visa program could generate $33 bn in net revenues, and create value for U.S. business, migrant labor and social conservatives at the same time. It could be a spectacular win for the Trump administration.

Quote from: Palmer Eldrič on 28-01-2017, 23:36:37
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi65.tinypic.com%2Fy2et1.png&hash=88ad17c9111a85498dfc2125e9326b009d28e967)

Quote



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Notice on Executive Order 01/27/17
Date: 2017-01-28
From: no-reply@ustraveldocs.com
To: xxx

Your visa appointment has been cancelled.  A U.S. Presidential Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017, suspended visa issuance to nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  Please continue to monitor www.ustraveldocs.com (http://www.ustraveldocs.com) for further updates.

Please note that certain travel for official governmental purposes, related to official business at or on behalf of designated international organizations, on behalf of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or by certain officials is not subject to this suspension.  If you believe your travel falls under one of these categories and your appointment was canceled in error, please contact us at www.ustraveldocs.com (http://www.ustraveldocs.com).

Quote

President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
That decision came after a long and shameful history in this country of barring immigrants based on where they came from. Starting in the late 19th century, laws excluded (https://ourdocuments.gov/doc_large_image.php?flash=true&doc=47) all Chinese, almost (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1899-1913/japanese-relations) all Japanese, then (http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1917_immigration_act.html) all Asians in the so-called Asiatic Barred Zone. Finally, in 1924, Congress created (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act) a comprehensive "national-origins system," skewing immigration quotas to benefit Western Europeans and to exclude most Eastern Europeans, almost all Asians, and Africans.
Mr. Trump appears to want to reinstate a new type of Asiatic Barred Zone by executive order, but there is just one problem: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned (http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html) all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin, replacing the old prejudicial system and giving each country an equal shot at the quotas. In signing the new law, President Lyndon B. Johnson said (http://www.lbjlibrary.org/lyndon-baines-johnson/timeline/lbj-on-immigration) that "the harsh injustice" of the national-origins quota system had been "abolished."Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182) that allows the president the ability to "suspend the entry" of "any class of aliens" that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
Continue reading the main story (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0#story-continues-1)      Related Coverage 

   
•    (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/28/opinion/28milibandWeb/28milibandWeb-thumbStandard-v5.jpg)    Opinion                         Op-Ed Contributor   Donald Trump's Un-American Refugee Policy JAN. 27, 2017     
•    (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/28/us/28military-vid/28military-vid-thumbStandard-v2.jpg)     Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries JAN. 27, 2017     
•    (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/28/world/28muslim/28muslim-thumbStandard.jpg)    NEWS ANALYSIS   Fears That Trump's Visa Ban Betrays Friends and Bolsters Enemies JAN. 27, 2017     
•    (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/01/28/opinion/28castaneda/28castaneda-thumbStandard.jpg)    Opinion                         Op-Ed Contributor   Mexico's Forceful Resistance JAN. 27, 2017     

Advertisement
  Continue reading the main story (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?_r=0#story-continues-2)      But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152) plainly that no person could be "discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence." The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Mr. Trump may want to revive discrimination based on national origin by asserting a distinction between "the issuance of a visa" and the "entry" of the immigrant. But this is nonsense. Immigrants cannot legally (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-procedures/green-card-eligibility) be issued a visa if they are barred from entry. Thus, all orders under the 1952 law apply equally to entry and visa issuance, as his executive order acknowledges.
Note that the discrimination ban applies only to immigrants. Legally speaking, immigrants are those who are given permanent United States residency. By contrast, temporary visitors like guest workers, students and tourists, as well as refugees, could still be barred. The 1965 law does not ban discrimination based on religion — which was (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration) Mr. Trump's original proposal.

While presidents have used their power dozens of times to keep out certain groups of foreigners under the 1952 law, no president has ever barred an entire nationality of immigrants without exception. In the most commonly cited case, President Jimmy Carter barred (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=33233) certain Iranians during the 1980 hostage crisis, but the targets were (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1980/04/10/issue.html) mainly students, tourists and temporary visitors. Even then, the policy had (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/09/carters-visa-crackdown-wont-hurt-immediately/2d181230-dcf9-4fe7-958c-947b7626213e/?utm_term=.ea60cd6ca5ec) many humanitarian exceptions. Immigrants continued (https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002973860) to be admitted in 1980.
While courts rarely interfere in immigration matters, they have affirmed the discrimination ban. In the 1990s, for example, the government created a policy that required Vietnamese who had fled to Hong Kong to return to Vietnam if they wanted to apply for United States immigrant visas, while it allowed applicants from other countries to apply for visas wherever they wanted. A federal appeals court blocked (http://openjurist.org/45/f3d/469/legal-assistance-for-vietnamese-asylum-seekers-v-department-of-state-bureau-of-consular-affairs) the policy.
The government in that case did not even bother arguing that the 1952 law permitted discrimination. The court rejected its defense that a "rational link" with a temporary foreign policy measure could justify ignoring the law — an argument the Trump administration is sure to make. The court wrote, "We cannot rewrite a statutory provision which by its own terms provides no exceptions or qualifications."
To resolve this case, Congress amended the law in 1996 to state (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152) that "procedures" and "locations" for processing immigration applications cannot count as discrimination. While there is plenty of room for executive mischief there, the amendment made clear that Congress still wanted the discrimination ban to hold some force. A blanket immigration prohibition on a nationality by the president would still be illegal.
Even if courts do find wiggle room here, discretion can be taken too far. If Mr. Trump can legally ban an entire region of the world, he would render Congress's vision of unbiased legal immigration a dead letter. An appeals court stopped (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1668197-hanen-opinion.html) President Barack Obama's executive actions to spare millions of undocumented immigrants from deportations for the similar reason that he was circumventing Congress. Some discretion? Sure. Discretion to rewrite the law? Not in America's constitutional system.

Quote

The White House is defending the statement (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/statement-president-international-holocaust-remembrance-day) it released on International Holocaust (https://time.com/4651998/stl-manifest-holocaust-remembrance-twitter/) Remembrance Day on Friday that had no mention of the 6 million Jews that were killed.


Hope Hicks, the Donald Trump (https://time.com/4652781/benjamin-wittes-donald-trump-immigration-order/) administration spokeswoman, told CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/white-house-holocaust-memorial-day/index.html) that, "despite what the media reports, we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered."
Other than having no mention of the 6 million Jews (https://time.com/4075998/jan-gross-poland-jews-wwii/) killed, the statement also failed to mention anti-Semitism.
Instead, Hicks provided a link (https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6555604) to a Huffington Post UK story that notes the 5 million other "priests, gypsies, people with mental or physical disabilities, communists, trade unionists, Jehovah's Witnesses, anarchists, Poles and other Slavic peoples, and resistance fighters," that were murdered in the genocide, according to CNN. When asked if asked if Trump purposely left out Jews in his statement to avoid offending anyone, Hicks simply said, "it was our honor to issue a statement in remembrance of this important day."
President Trump's statement is sharply different than those of his predecessors — namely Presidents George W. Bush (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24462) and Barack Obama (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/27/statement-president-international-holocaust-remembrance-day) — who both had some mention of Jews or anti-Semitism in their statements.

QuoteTrump has been trying to govern by impulse, on whim, for personal retribution, for profit, by decree ― as if he had been elected dictator. It doesn't work, and the wheels are coming off the bus. After a week!  Impeachment is gaining ground because it is the only way to get him out, and because Republicans are already deserting this president in droves, and because the man is psychiatrically incapable of checking whether something is legal before he does it. Impeachment is gaining ground because it's so horribly clear that Trump is unfit for office. The grownups around Trump, even the most slavishly loyal ones, spend half their time trying to rein him in, but it can't be done. They spend the other half fielding frantic calls from Republican chieftains, business elites and foreign leaders. Trump did what? Poor Reince Priebus has finally attained the pinnacle of power, and it can't be fun.  It is one thing to live in your own reality when you are a candidate and it's just words. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time maybe even to get elected. But when you try to govern that way, there is a reality to reality—and reality pushes back. One by one, Trump has decreed impulsive orders, un-vetted by legal, policy, or political staff, much less by serious planning. Almost immediately he is forced to walk them back by a combination of political and legal pressure—and by reality. Unlike in the various dictatorships Trump admires, the complex skein of constitutional legal and political checks on tyranny in the United States are holding—just barely at times, but they are holding. And the more reckless Trump's behavior, the stronger become the checks.  Only with his lunatic effort to selectively ban refugees (but not from terrorist-sending countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt where Trump has business interests) has Trump discovered that the American system has courts. It has courts. Imagine that. The more unhinged he becomes, the less will conservative judges be the toadies to ordinary Republican policies that they too often have been. Anybody want to wager that the Supreme Court will be Trump's whore? In the past week, Republicans from Mitch McConnell on down have tripped over each other rejecting his view of Putin. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/mcconnell-trump-voter-fraud/) They have ridiculed his screwball claim of massive voter fraud.  They are running for cover on how to kill ObamaCare without killing patients or Republican re-election hopes. This is actually complicated, and nuance is not Trump's strong suit. Rep Tom McClintock of California spoke for many when he warned (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/behind-closed-doors-republican-lawmakers-fret-about-how-to-repeal-obamacare/2017/01/27/deabdafa-e491-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.9babb05c52f6): "We'd better be sure that we're prepared to live with the market we've created" with repeal, said Rep. Tom McClintock. (R-Calif.) "That's going to be called Trumpcare. Republicans will own that lock, stock and barrel, and we'll be judged in the election less than two years away." Sen. Lindsey Graham, mocking Trump's own nutty tweeting habits, sent out a tweet calling a trade war with Mexico "mucho sad (http://theweek.com/speedreads/676207/lindsey-graham-calls-president-trumps-mexican-import-tax-idea-mucho-sad)."  Trump's own senior staff has had to pull him back from his ludicrous crusade against Mexico and Mexicans, where Trump forces the Mexican president to cancel an official visit one day, and spends an hour on the phone kissing up the next day. Trump proposed to reinstate torture, but key Republican leaders killed that idea. Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the Senate's third ranking Republican said Wednesday that the ban on torture was settled law and the Republicans in Congress would oppose any reinstatement. Trump's own defense secretary holds the same view. After blustering out his new torture policy, Trump meekly agreed to defer (http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-torture-absolutely-works-but-ill-defer-to-mattis-pompeo/) to his defense advisers.  All this in just a week! Now capped by federal judges starting to rein him in. Two weeks ago, in this space, just based on what we witnessed during the transition, I wrote a piece calling for a citizens impeachment panel (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/impeaching-trump_us_5869b806e4b0eb586489f3a4), as a shadow House Judiciary Committee, to assemble a dossier for a Trump impeachment, and a citizens' campaign to create a public impeachment movement.  In the two weeks since then, Free Speech for People has launched a citizens' campaign to impeach (http://impeachdonaldtrumpnow.org) Trump. About 400,000 people have already signed the impeachment petition.  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/20/the-campaign-to-impeach-president-trump-has-begun/?utm_term=.11fda9a94f6b) The bipartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, (http://www.citizensforethics.org) (CREW) has been conducting a detailed investigation. Senior legal scholars associated with CREW have filed a detailed legal brief  (http://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/23222937/Complaint-17-458.pdf)in their lawsuit, documenting the several ways Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits a president from profiting from the actions of foreign governments.  There are already plenty of other grounds for impeachment, including Trump's putting his own business interests ahead of the country's and his weird and opportunistic alliance with Vladimir Putin bordering on treason. A lesser-known law that goes beyond the Emoluments Clause is the STOCK Act of 2012, which explicitly prohibits the president and other officials from profiting from non-public knowledge. Impeachment, of course, is a political as well as a legal process. The Founders designed it that way deliberately. But after just a week in office, not only has Trump been deserting the Constitution; his partisan allies are deserting him. Despite his creepy weirdness, Republicans at first thought they could use Trump for Republican ends. But from his embrace of Putin to his sponsorship of a general trade war, this is no Republican. One can only imagine the alarm and horror being expressed by Republicans privately. In 1984, the psychiatrist Otto Kernberg described a sickness known as Malignant Narcissism. Unlike ordinary narcissism, malignant narcissism was a severe pathology. It was characterized by an absence of conscience, a pathological grandiosity and quest for power, and a sadistic joy in cruelty.  Given the sheer danger to the Republic as well as to the Republicans, Trump's impeachment will happen. The only question is how grave a catastrophe America faces first.   Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and professor at Brandeis University's Heller School. His latest book is Debtors' Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility. http://www.amazon.com/Debtors-Prison-Politics-Austerity-Possibility/dp/0307959805 (http://www.amazon.com/Debtors-Prison-Politics-Austerity-Possibility/dp/0307959805) Like Robert Kuttner on Facebook: http://facebook.com/RobertKuttner (http://facebook.com/RobertKuttner)

Quote from: lilit on 29-01-2017, 03:19:28
sorry ako je već postavljano al ima hilarious momenata  nas-rofl

http://youtu.be/ELD2AwFN9Nc

Quote from: Scordisk on 28-01-2017, 19:57:33
ujujuj, bruderu trumpe, srpski sine, zašto, k vragu  xrotaeye

http://kossev.info/strana/arhiva/trampova_administracija__kosovo_treba_da_formira_vojsku/11035

Quote from: Anomander Rejk on 30-01-2017, 13:29:48
Niko normalan-ne računam tu Šešelja, Vučićevića i slične.

Quote

The acting U.S. Attorney General, Sally Yates, was fired Monday night hours after she refused to defend President Trump (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/donald-trump.htm)'s executive order regarding immigration because she is not convinced it is "lawful," according to a letter.
In a statement, the White House said Yates "betrayed the Department of Justice" and was "weak on borders" and said she was being replaced by Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
"Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration," the White House statement said. "It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country."
In the letter, Yates wrote: "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/issues/executive-orders.htm) is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful."
Trump's Order Heightens Risk of Extremist Attacks in the US, Counterterror Expert Says (http://preview.abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-trumps-order-heightens-risk-extremist-attacks-us/story?id=45128850&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_bsq_related)


Immigration Order Faces New Challenges After Tumultuous Weekend (http://preview.abcnews.go.com/US/activists-set-protests-airport-detainees-cleared/story?id=45138530&cid=clicksource_4380645_1_hero_headlines_bsq_related)


"Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/justice-department.htm) will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so."
Trump's order, which went into effect Friday, affects immigration from seven countries that have predominantly Muslim populations, temporarily bans certain travelers and places indefinite restrictions on Syrian refugees (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/world/syrian-refugees.htm).
The order sparked protests at airports across the country, as well as legal action. A federal judge issued a stay on part of the order regarding deportations.  (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/detained-york-airport-cairo-wake-trumps-executive-order/story?id=45109972)
Yates, who was nominated by former President Obama and confirmed in May 2015, wrote that the "order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions."
"My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts," she wrote. "In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."
She also wrote that the Office of Legal Counsel's review of the order "does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just."
Before Trump signed the executive order, DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel offered the White House a "narrow" assessment of whether the orders were illegal on their face, according to a Justice Department official.
"Through administrations of both parties, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has consistently been asked by the White House to review Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. That review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC's view, a proposed Executive Order is on its face lawful and properly drafted. OLC has continued to serve this traditional role in the present administration," the DOJ official said a statement.
The office's legal review is generally conducted without the involvement of DOJ leadership, and OLC's legal review "does not address the broader policy issues inherent in any executive order," the statement continued.
According to a DHS official, as of Sunday night, there were 735 encounters at ports of entry related to the executive order and no one remains detained.
In addition, there was confusion over whether or not the executive order applied to green card holders from the countries, until DHS Sec. John Kelly issued a statement Sunday, ordering that the entry of lawful permanent residents was in "the national interest," allowing those people to enter the U.S. absent any "significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare."
After Yates' letter was released, Trump Tweeted on Monday night that the "Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G."
And on MSNBC, White House adviser Stephen Miller said that the acting attorney general's memo is a "demonstration of how politicized our legal system has become" and defended the president's authority to determine who is allowed to enter the country.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer defended the implementation of the president's immigration executive order during his press briefing Monday, telling ABC News' Cecilia Vega that the interests of national security outweighed the uncertainty that was caused to those who were stuck in limbo when they arrived in the U.S.
"Coming into this country is a privilege, and be able to come to America is a privilege not a right and it is our duty and it is the president's goal to make sure that everyone who comes to this country to the best of our ability is here because they want to enjoy this country and come in peacefully and so he takes that obligation extremely seriously," he said.

Quote
Theresa May has an enormous Trump-shaped problem on her hands. Outside Downing Street tonight and in protests across the country, people will demand that she rescind her invitation of a state visit for the new US president. A petition (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928) demanding that the visit be downgraded is around the million signatures mark as this article was written. It needed just 100,000 to be considered for a debate in parliament.
This visit is now an albatross around the prime minister's neck. But why? There was no mention of a state visit before her trip to the US. No-one was calling for it. But when she and Trump strode out for a press conference on Friday, she made herself a hostage of fortune. Not for the first time, she has invented a problem which is not in her power to control.
"I have today been able to convey her majesty the Queen's hope that president Trump and the first lady would pay a state visit to the United Kingdom later this year," she said on stage.
It was baffling. Up until then, May seemed to be doing relatively well. She had issued warnings to Republicans on Trumpism, highlighting dangers around Nato, Russia, Islamophobia and free trade.


And then she invited him on a state visit, one of the greatest honours she can bestow and a sign of the British establishment's full embrace of the president. Britain has placed trade over principles many times before, and specifically in this manner. President Xi Jinping of China was given a state visit (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2015/10/21/david-cameron-s-comments-on-chinese-human-rights-should-be-m) in 2015, much to the horror of human rights groups. He wandered round the country looking unimpressed while David Cameron, with pathetic eagerness, encouraged him to drink pints in a country pub. But at least that visit simply involved ignoring the long-established abuses in a state over which we realistically have little influence. Here, May was validating the path of a country over which we do have some influence as it embarked on an experiment in right-wing authoritarianism.
And not only that, but she was putting the royal family in Trump's orbit. Instantly stories started circulating that Trump would publicly disrespect Prince Charles because - shock horror - he believes in climate change. Princess William and Harry would have to sit with a man who boasted that he could have slept with - sorry, "could've nailed" - their mother, months after she died.
It also constitutes a likely security risk to the UK. When May was home secretary she regularly blocked entry to Britain to anyone who might encourage or lead to violence. Well she may not be able to block Trump, but by associating the British establishment with the US president's explicit Islamophobia she complements the narrative put out by Isis to those in the UK who they hope will listen.
We know why she did it. Brexit. The newfound desperation and weakness of a country which we were assured was suddenly going to be in control of its destiny, but is in fact adrift in the sea, urgently in need of assistance from friends and allies.
But what did May secure in exchange for this offer? As far as we can tell, nothing. Trump does not seem to have made the Nato assurances she wanted. A trade deal with the US remains years away. She has nothing.
But she did create a new problem for herself. Almost as soon as she left the US the nightmare began. Trump's Muslim ban came into force in the most brutal way imaginable, penning people in airports, detaining refugees and interpreters and families and old women, and expanding to include those who had been legally resident in the US for years on green cards. It affected Brits too. Initially it seemed those with dual passports would be affected, then even those who were born in the list of banned states, regardless of their passport. This included figures like Olympics star Sir Mo Farah and Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi.
US officials have now belatedly said Brits are excluded from that. They do so like any tinpot dictatorship, coming out with a badly defined law, enforcing it aggressively, and then making exceptions based on little more than friendship or convenience, without due process. But regardless, the assurances have been made.


May's initial response was to repeatedly say that "the United States is responsible for the United States' policy on refugees". Once again, she retreats into meaningless tautology or truism when confronted with a thorny issue. It is not a tactic which fools anyone. Then her position gradually disintegrated. A panicked statement released around midnight on Saturday expressed more criticism. By the end of Sunday the US had offered assurances to the UK - although not for dual-passport holders travelling from the banned countries - and apparently all was well again.
Except that many figures in British politics are principled enough to understand that the policy is intolerable regardless of whether it affects British citizens. It is a moral and constitutional atrocity. That's not because of its effect, but because of its intention. Regardless of their failure or the damage they cause, western policy is always at least trying to solve a problem. Even the disaster of Iraq, or Guantanamo, or extra-judicial killing through drone strikes, had a purpose which, for many - including myself - they sacrificed too many moral principles to secure. But this was different. This was not intended to be effective. It catches too many and excludes too many to be a viable counter-terror policy. It is intended to be discriminatory. Nothing more. This is the theatre of prejudice, weaponised to consolidate Trump's base of support.
For many that was enough, There was now criticism of May's decision to grant Trump a state visit across the political divide. It was so serious even Jeremy Corbyn bothered to say something. The Lib Dems, the SNP and the Greens joined in. And Tory MPs made themselves clear. Sarah Wollaston said Trump should be disinvited from addressing the Houses of Parliament. James Cleverly branded the ban  "indefensible, unworkable and almost certainly unconstitutional". Tim Loughton called it "unsustainable and counter-productive". Alistair Burt suggested the UK "try and find a reason for why this visit should not go ahead".
But for now, she's lumped with it: a significant symbolic battle in which Brits appalled by Trump have an outlet for their anger. And all for what? Nothing.
What's concerning is how similarly her misjudgements in this matter correspond to those over Brexit. No-one was talking about the European Court of Justice apart from a few blow-hards when she made her October conference speech. Now it is a red line, which radically complicates her options for the Brexit deal. When she inevitably has to secure an interim period to negotiate a trade deal in 2019, continuing to come under the court's jurisdiction will be a likely EU demand and a way of securing an agreement, because of continued equivalence. But that means she'll be breaking the promises she chose to make on a subject no-one was talking about. It's a rod she made for her own back. And now she's done it again.
These unforced errors she keeps making are bad enough in their own right. But they are particularly concerning given she is about to begin the most complicated, important and dangerous negotiations of Britain's post-war history. And they are particularly depressing when they prevent the UK expressing alarm at the moral disintegration of its greatest ally.
May's initial response was to repeatedly say that "the United States is responsible for the United States' policy on refugees". Once again, she retreats into meaningless tautology or truism when confronted with a thorny issue. It is not a tactic which fools anyone. Then her position gradually disintegrated. A panicked statement released around midnight on Saturday expressed more criticism. By the end of Sunday the US had offered assurances to the UK - although not for dual-passport holders travelling from the banned countries - and apparently all was well again.
Except that many figures in British politics are principled enough to understand that the policy is intolerable regardless of whether it affects British citizens. It is a moral and constitutional atrocity. That's not because of its effect, but because of its intention. Regardless of their failure or the damage they cause, western policy is always at least trying to solve a problem. Even the disaster of Iraq, or Guantanamo, or extra-judicial killing through drone strikes, had a purpose which, for many - including myself - they sacrificed too many moral principles to secure. But this was different. This was not intended to be effective. It catches too many and excludes too many to be a viable counter-terror policy. It is intended to be discriminatory. Nothing more. This is the theatre of prejudice, weaponised to consolidate Trump's base of support.
For many that was enough, There was now criticism of May's decision to grant Trump a state visit across the political divide. It was so serious even Jeremy Corbyn bothered to say something. The Lib Dems, the SNP and the Greens joined in. And Tory MPs made themselves clear. Sarah Wollaston said Trump should be disinvited from addressing the Houses of Parliament. James Cleverly branded the ban  "indefensible, unworkable and almost certainly unconstitutional". Tim Loughton called it "unsustainable and counter-productive". Alistair Burt suggested the UK "try and find a reason for why this visit should not go ahead".
But for now, she's lumped with it: a significant symbolic battle in which Brits appalled by Trump have an outlet for their anger. And all for what? Nothing.
What's concerning is how similarly her misjudgements in this matter correspond to those over Brexit. No-one was talking about the European Court of Justice apart from a few blow-hards when she made her October conference speech. Now it is a red line, which radically complicates her options for the Brexit deal. When she inevitably has to secure an interim period to negotiate a trade deal in 2019, continuing to come under the court's jurisdiction will be a likely EU demand and a way of securing an agreement, because of continued equivalence. But that means she'll be breaking the promises she chose to make on a subject no-one was talking about. It's a rod she made for her own back. And now she's done it again.
These unforced errors she keeps making are bad enough in their own right. But they are particularly concerning given she is about to begin the most complicated, important and dangerous negotiations of Britain's post-war history. And they are particularly depressing when they prevent the UK expressing alarm at the moral disintegration of its greatest ally.

Quote from: mac on 31-01-2017, 13:24:18
Verovatno ima birača koji su rezonovali da posle Buša mlađeg mora da se prekine s tom modom "dinastokratije", i da su zato glasali protiv Clinton v2.0. Sad ispade da su zauzvrat dobili nepotizam i kleptokratiju.


Srbi takođe mrze ideju Clinton v2.0, jer je Clinton v1.0 bombardovao Srbiju. Tu nema ništa sporno, i nema nikakve veze sa Trampom.

Quote
Across the massive mall parking lot from the Red Lobster, Rush Limbaugh (http://www.latimes.com/topic/arts-culture/mass-media/news-media/rush-limbaugh-PECLB0004542-topic.html)'s radio show blared from the speakers of a silver sedan, idling near Party City with its windows down.
The nominal topic Monday was the alleged liberal assault on NFL quarterback Tom Brady, but Limbaugh had long since moved on: to a border wall, suspicions of nationwide protests and President Trump's response to the threat posed by foreigners.

Nodding approvingly in the driver's seat was Doyle MacCree, 84, of Goodyear, a conservative suburb west of Phoenix.
Here, more than 120 miles from the border, Arizona voters outraged with President Obama's executive orders that welcomed the foreign-born to America are delighted with Trump's first week in office, when his actions seemed to have done the opposite.
  Trump has ordered federal funding withheld from cities that provide sanctuary (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-sanctuary-legal-battle-20170127-story.html) to immigrants in the country illegally, demanded Congress pay for the immediate construction of a 1,900-mile border wall (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-trump-import-tax-20170126-story.html) and banned travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries (http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-trailguide-updates-1485885194-htmlstory.html), as a way, he says, to keep terrorists at bay.

"The wall is just the start of it," MacCree said. He's looking ahead to the potential for violence on the border over the question of who gets in and who doesn't.
Perhaps Trump hasn't yet gone far enough, voters here say, but give it time. He has uncomplicated solutions to what they see as uncomplicated problems.
Arizona, with its lengthy border with Mexico, was the epicenter of a fierce debate over immigration long before the rest of the country, prodded by Trump, took up the issue.
The state's traditional libertarian-leaning conservatism has been tempered in recent years by a rapidly growing Latino population; Trump still carried Arizona in November with nearly 50% support.
Goodyear is in Arizona's conservative 13^th legislative district, which swoops down from the western edges of Phoenix to the southwest corner of the state.
Its state senator, Steve Montenegro, poses on his campaign website with Maricopa County's famously hard-line former Sheriff Joe Arpaio (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arpaio-snow-2017-story.html). Montenegro has previously demanded that all prayers in the Legislature ask for help and guidance from God, to avoid nontheistic invocations. His district is primarily agricultural land and Luke Air Force Base, and his voters are a mix of social conservatives, farmers and military personnel.
As she herded three tow-headed children into her minivan after a trip to Olive Garden on Monday afternoon, Tara Jenkins acknowledged her initial fear that Trump wouldn't live up to the traditional conservative values of a politician like Montenegro.
"I was, frankly, worried about what Trump would do," said Jenkins, 36, of Buckeye, a conservative suburb neighboring Goodyear.
She didn't know whether he would act on his campaign promises or simply change his mind after his inauguration. She has been happy with Trump's directives.
"It's everything he said he wanted to do, and that's something we needed," Jenkins said.
She's not sure yet whether Trump's executive orders will immediately secure the border, she said, and she doesn't want to see refugees in genuine need turned away from the U.S., but she wonders how it's possible to tell which refugees are truly seeking asylum and which ones intend to do the nation harm.
"I love America, OK?" Jenkins said. "And this gives me hope. It's the right direction."
After eight years of a Democratic president,  Trump is doing everything MacCree hoped a president would to obliterate Obama's legacy (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obama-legacy-20161110-story.html), he said.
If there are too many people crossing into the U.S., build a barrier to stop them, MacCree said. If there are potential terrorists claiming refugee status, don't let them in. If Obamacare threatens small businesses, shut it down any way you can. 
This country's inner cities require "cleaning out," MacCree said, to free them from the grip of gangs. The border needs more men and more guns. People fleeing Arabic-speaking countries shouldn't run, but should stay where they are and fight Islamic extremism — unless they're the extremists themselves. Either way, they should not be afforded entry to the U.S.
As Trump takes step after step to fix what MacCree sees as America's ills, MacCree can only shake his head at the alternative. After all, it was only three short months ago that Hillary Clinton was seen as a sure bet for the presidency.
With Trump's victory, the whole country won, MacCree said. "The people spoke out and said enough was enough."
From the safety of his onetime home in Arkansas, MacCree watched northern Texas towns' populations change from white to primarily Hispanic. Then a few years spent in San Diego convinced him that any city along the border was in danger of shifting in population just as dramatically, and that a fairly open transnational policy with a Mexican city like Tijuana spelled doom for cities on the U.S. side of the border. 
Now in Arizona, he's far from Mexico, but he still defines his safety by the degree of security at the border.
"Nothing will stop them," MacCree said. "You build a fence and they'll jump it. You make the wall [taller] and they dig under it. Puts us all at risk."
MacCree doesn't believe Trump will stop at a wall. Such a promise was only the beginning of a new era in U.S. policy, he said, a projection of strength to countries that had begun to take America's openness for granted.
"It's his law now," MacCree said about Trump. "A wall will just stop [border crossers] a little, get in the way.
"We'll see what the next step is. I know he's got one."

Quote
By itself, the 230-point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA, +0.14%  this week wasn't earth shattering: 1% gains and losses happen all the time. But the clattering sound accompanying it wasn't hard to diagnose: It was the sound of scales falling off of Wall Street's eyes.

The market this week is dealing with the realization that President Donald Trump means all the things he says. He really is a protectionist, really does think America needs to be protected from the world both economically and physically. He really does make policy without much care or thought to get details right, he really has recruited an honest-to-God terrible team, and it actually is kind of dangerous.

For months, Wall Street strategists scrambled to justify a post-election rally most didn't see coming by claiming Trump's proposed tax cuts and vague infrastructure spending plans would goose growth, while discounting his vow to impose trade barriers as not really serious. Ten days into his presidency, the president has alienated our third-biggest trading partner in Mexico while having his spokesman float vague proposals about 20% taxes the president himself says might apply to all imports.

And the rally goes thump. Not quite a crash, certainly not yet.   
But the combination of the flirtation with new trade barriers — there's no bill introduced in Congress yet to make them real — and this past weekend's bar on immigration or even visitors from seven mostly-Muslim nations makes clear that Trump really means to do as he says.

And the Keystone Kops nature of how he fired Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, for refusing to defend the immigration order in court, along with the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, makes clear that inmates led by presidential counselor Steve Bannon now run the asylum.

The economy is already showing that it's the same 2% to 2.5% annual growth engine it has been since the 2008 financial crisis, no matter what the president tweets about his having brought hope for 4% growth. The Commerce Department's first estimate of fourth-quarter growth (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-economy-slows-to-19-in-4th-quarter-gdp-shows-2017-01-27) showed it at an annual rate of 1.9%, down from 3.5% in the third quarter. Moody's Analytics is warning that its call for a first-quarter pickup is at risk after a weak December report  (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-spending-jumps-in-december-so-does-inflation-2017-01-30)on consumer spending, which isn't matching reported gains in consumer confidence.

Wage growth is slowing too (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/labor-costs-climb-05-in-4th-quarter-eci-shows-2017-01-31), according to the employment cost index release Monday. "Up just 2.2% in past year," liberal economist Dean Baker says, with a pickup in inflation to boot. "Why is [the] Fed raising interest rates?"


The rally was based on assumptions, embedded in reports from banks like Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch, that Trump's tax cuts and infrastructure plans would boost growth — and that he wouldn't go ahead with trade policies that would erase the gains, or would water them way down. Now, congressional Republicans are balking at infrastructure plans, and a determination to create a deglobalized America is taking precedence.

Bad combination. Shame on Wall Street for selling a cake-and-candy version of it.

Late-fall gains in consumer confidence helped fool Wall Street, but they were Twitter gold: The surge in the numbers in Gallup's confidence surveys (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/and-just-like-that-republicans-are-pretty-confident-in-where-the-economy-is-headed/?utm_term=.41df64e31ea9), at least, just reflected gains in the confidence of people who voted for Trump. The Conference Board reported Tuesday that consumer confidence dropped in January  (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/consumer-confidence-in-january-slips-from-15-year-high-2017-01-31)after hitting a 15-year high in December.

The other grain of salt is that expectations were last this high in 2001, when the economy had just entered a recession consumers didn't yet feel. But evidence was piling up during the quarter that consumers weren't spending much — and the Street mostly ignored it.


This is what the market has to grapple with now: Whether a combination of immaturity, surreality and stubborn refusal to engage with (indeed, an open desire to roll back) economic changes that have been underway for decades — and which have already lifted 1 billion people out of extreme poverty worldwide — is really good for creating a stable market for investment and promoting growth.

And whether Wall Street will really confront its own little bout of post-election surreality, in which it conjured up an economic rally that wasn't there to justify a stock rally that had ended by the time I pointed out the disparity. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economic-data-will-doom-the-trump-stock-market-rally-2016-12-19)

Spectacle is bad for business. Sometimes the spectacle is Trump obsessing over his inaugural crowd, or his habitual lying. Last night, it was sweeping out Yates for defending the rule of law. This morning, it's the amusing sight of a spokesman for Queen Elizabeth  (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/queen-put-very-difficult-position-trump-state-visit-n714571)trying to wriggle out of the state visit British Prime Minister Theresa Gray invited Trump to make.

Today's real problem is Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro crudely trying to manipulate currency markets, calling the euro "grossly undervalued" (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/yen-strengthens-amid-uncertainty-over-trump-boj-stance-2017-01-31) in what looks like a bid to undo damage Trump does with policies that pump up the dollar and threaten U.S. exports. Navarro also decided to lecture the Financial Times  (https://www.ft.com/content/57f104d2-e742-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539)about how global supply chains are a bad thing, despite decades of practice by executives who know their businesses far better than Navarro does.

"It's amateur hour," said Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at management consultancy RSM US. "Euro grossly overvalued? Repatriation of U.S. supply chain? That way lies perdition. Pun intended."

Yes, it is. But at some point, which we can't yet see from here, amateur hour may devolve into a Creamsicle Swan, the kind of unpredictable negative event presidential tantrums can cause.

A struggle between the essential stability of the U.S. economy and the 11-day old instability of its political institutions is being joined before our eyes. The path of the market hangs in the balance.

Quote
President Donald Trump's clash with Silicon Valley over immigration is about to become even more contentious.
After the new president banned refugees and travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, Google, Facebook, Salesforce, Microsoft and others railed against (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-28/google-facebook-reflect-tech-dismay-on-trump-immigration-order) the move, saying it violated the country's principles and risked disrupting its engine of innovation. Trump's next steps could strike even closer to home: His administration has drafted an executive order aimed at overhauling the work-visa programs technology companies depend on to hire tens of thousands of employees each year.
If implemented, the reforms could shift the way American companies like Microsoft Corp., Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US) recruit talent and force wholesale changes at Indian companies such as Infosys Ltd. and Wipro Ltd. Businesses would have to try to hire American first and if they recruit foreign workers, priority would be given to the most highly paid.
"Our country's immigration policies should be designed and implemented to serve, first and foremost, the U.S. national interest," the draft proposal reads, according to a copy reviewed by Bloomberg. "Visa programs for foreign workers ... should be administered in a manner that protects the civil rights of American workers and current lawful residents, and that prioritizes the protection of American workers -- our forgotten working people -- and the jobs they hold."
The foreign work visas were originally established to help U.S. companies recruit from abroad when they couldn't find qualified local workers. In many cases, the companies are hiring for highly technical positions in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM. But in recent years, there have been allegations the programs have been abused to bring in cheaper workers from overseas to fill jobs that otherwise may go to Americans. The top recipients of the H-1B visas are outsourcers, primarily from India, who run the technology departments of large corporations with largely imported staff.
"Immigrant STEM workers have contributed an outsize share to founding new companies, getting patents, and helping build up American companies, which in turn because of their success have created tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs," said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who does research in labor markets. "Discouraging such people to apply for visas to enter the United States to work -- I can't imagine how that can be considered to be in the American national interest."
The Trump administration did not respond to a request for comment on the draft. The proposal is consistent with the president's public comments on pushing companies to add more jobs to the U.S., from auto manufacturing to technology.


It's not clear how much force the executive order would have if it is signed by the president. Congress is also working on visa reforms and the parties will have to cooperate to pass new laws. Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic congresswoman from California, introduced a bill last week to tighten requirements for the H-1B work visa program.
"My legislation refocuses the H-1B program to its original intent – to seek out and find the best and brightest from around the world, and to supplement the U.S. workforce with talented, highly-paid, and highly-skilled workers," Lofgren said in a statement.
India's technology companies, led by Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/TCS:IN) Infosys and Wipro, have argued they are helping corporations become more competitive by handling their technology operations with specialized staff. They also contend the visa programs allow them to keep jobs in the U.S. and that if they have to pay more for staff, they will handle more of the work remotely from less expensive markets like India.
"Inspections and investigations in the past have shown no cases of wrongdoing by Indian IT services companies, which have always been fully compliant with the law," said R Chandrashekhar, president of Nasscom, the trade group for India's information technology sector. "The industry is open to any kind of checks in the system, but they should not cause any hindrance to the smooth operation of companies."
Wipro and TCS declined to comment for this story.
A spokeswoman for Infosys said the company is monitoring the U.S. visa proposals, but it is too early to assess their impact given the uncertainty of what will be approved.
"We continue to hire and invest locally," the company said in an e-mail. "However, given the skill shortages in the U.S. and the availability of technically skilled workforce in various global markets, we also rely upon visa programs to supplement these skills. For the long term, we are also exploring new operating models to ensure business continuity as we navigate this dynamic environment. This includes reducing our visa dependency and efforts towards making Infosys a preferred employer in the U.S."
Wipro, Infosys and TCS shares all tumbled Tuesday along with other Indian tech services companies, pulling down the NSE Nifty Index. Wipro fell the most in nine months, while Tech Mahindra Ltd. dropped the most in almost two years.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., a New Jersey-based company that is one of the heaviest users of the H-1B program, saw shares fall 4.4 percent Monday, the most in four months.
The draft of Trump's executive order covers an alphabet soup of visa programs, including H-1B, L-1, E-2 and B1. The first is a popular program with technology companies and is aimed at allowing them to bring in high-skill workers when they can't find local hires with the appropriate skills. The legislation caps the number of people who can enter the U.S. annually at 85,000, including those with undergrad and master's degrees.
In recent years though, outsourcing companies have received the most H-1B visas, while other tech companies have struggled to get all they want. In 2014, the most recent year for which data is available, the top five recipients were all outsourcing companies, led by Tata Consultancy.
       Ron Hira, an associate professor at Howard University, who has done extensive research on the subject, points out workers at outsourcers are typically not treated as well as others. The median wage at outsourcing firms for H-1B workers was less than $70,000, while Apple, Google and Microsoft paid their employees in the program more than $100,000, according to data he collected. That suggests the American companies are going after true, highly skilled employees, while the outsourcers are recruiting less expensive talent, he said.The proposed Trump order is also aimed at bringing more transparency to the program. It calls for publishing reports with basic statistics on who uses the immigration programs within one month of the end of the government's fiscal year. The Obama administration had scaled back the information available on the programs and required Freedom of Information Act requests for some data.


Whatever specific changes are implemented, they are likely to add to the expenses for India's technology companies. That may accelerate a shift to new kinds of services, such as cloud computing and artificial intelligence, said Raja Lahiri (http://bit.ly/2jICGrJ), partner at the Mumbai-based partner at consultancy Grant Thornton India
"The visa challenges are not going to go away easily," he said. "They will continue to be a challenge for Indian IT companies."

Quote from: Scordisk on 04-02-2017, 20:24:27
U ovom standardu na momente ima nekih baš lucidnih zapažanja i izjava, ali, ovako, u celini uzev, čitavoj redakciji treba podeliti glogove kočeve, da mogu da vijaju svoje petokolonaške vampire čije-se-ime-ne-sme-spomenuti, nego neka čitaoci sada gataju u bob na koga i šta su oni mislili... A kako nezvanično saznajemo mogu da promene u kristalnu kuglu :D Ja ovolko demagogije od fakulteta nisam video, ne moš' ih ni za glavu ni za rep uhvatiti.

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 08-02-2017, 21:34:22
Tldr kad je anketar ljudsko biće podrška manja, kad mašina ispituje podrška Trampu veća.

Quote from: PizzobattoPoster nije nepsmen!

Quote
He's the most inept, disorganized, sloppy, incompetent president in recent memory.

This article first appeared on RobertReich.org. (http://robertreich.org/post/157212911060)

Donald Trump sold himself to voters as a successful businessman who knew how to get things done, a no-nonsense manager who'd whip government into shape.

But he's showing himself to be about the most inept, disorganized, sloppy, incompetent president in recent memory, one whose White House is nearly dysfunctional.

He allowed  Michael Flynn (http://europe.newsweek.com/despite-denials-russians-were-contact-trump-campaign-555081) to hang on until the last minute. In any halfway competent administration, Flynn would have been gone the moment it became clear he lied to the vice president about his contacts with Russia.

Sean Spicer is a  joke, literally (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediapost.com%2Fpublications%2Farticle%2F294701%2Fis-trumps-press-secretary-a-joke-late-night-tv-t.html&t=OWRkZjQ3Y2M5OWNjNzE1OWMwM2UxMjc4NmM0NDU2YTVlOGUxN2QyZSxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1). His vituperative, vindictive press conferences are already rich food for late-night comedy. In a White House that had any idea what it means to be an effective press secretary, Spicer would be out the door.

The Muslim travel ban was totally  bungled (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F02%2F05%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-white-house-aides-strategy.html%3F_r%3D0&t=MjgxYTc5MDI3ZTc4MDc5NDZhOTJkYmUwYjdkYTEwZmUyOGI2MjhjNyxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1)—unclear, haphazard, badly thought out. Trump complains that "his people didn't give him good advice," (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2017%2F02%2Ftrump-white-house-staff-234949&t=N2Q2NGIwY2Q5ZTgwMjZhZWU1YTc4YzY0NGE3Y2UyY2IwMmE1OTg1MixpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) but the people most directly responsible for it—Stephen Bannon (http://europe.newsweek.com/how-bannon-cranked-his-propaganda-machine-555188) and  Stephen Miller (http://europe.newsweek.com/michael-dorf-trumps-toxic-mix-incompetence-malevolence-550549)—have only gained more power in the White House. 

Meanwhile, Trump's White House has sprung  more leaks than any in memory. (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fhomenews%2Fadministration%2F318621-trump-white-house-besieged-by-leaks&t=YjRiN2IxMzE2ODI0ZTVmYmZiZTVjODA3YWE0ZWM4YjVjZWIwNGE5YyxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) Aides are leaking news about other aides. They're leaking examples of Trump's incompetence and weirdness. They're leaking the contents of telephone calls to other heads of state in which Trump was unprepared, didn't know basic facts and berated foreign leaders.
Related: Robert Reich: The dangerous rise of Steve Bannon (http://europe.newsweek.com/robert-reich-dangerous-rise-steve-bannon-549967)
Chief of Staff Reince Priebus seems to have  no idea what (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Freince-priebus-trump-chris-ruddy-2017-2&t=ZWMwYmM2ZjE0MzcyN2UxMWJkYjBlZjYxMTY2MDA4NGE0NzY0YzI2NSxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) is going on. A White House official  complained (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2Ffrom-order-to-disorder-how-trumps-immigration-directive-exposed-gop-rifts%2F2017%2F01%2F30%2Fb4e42044-e70f-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html%3Futm_term%3D.da40278174f6&t=NjU0YmFiNTYzMTVmOGZiNGZhM2UxMmNhYWNkYjZhODcyOGRkMjM1YSxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) to The Washington Post: "We have to get Reince to relax into the job and become more competent, because he's seeing shadows where there are no shadows." Trump's buddy Chris Ruddy described Priebus as being "in way over his head."

Infighting is wild.  Rumors are swirling (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fstory%2F2017%2F02%2Ftrump-white-house-staff-234949&t=N2Q2NGIwY2Q5ZTgwMjZhZWU1YTc4YzY0NGE3Y2UyY2IwMmE1OTg1MixpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) that Kellyanne Conway wants Priebus's job, that Stephen Miller is eyeing Spicer's job, that no one trusts anyone else.

The New York Times reports  "chaotic and anxious days inside the White House's National Security Council." (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F02%2F12%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Fnational-security-council-turmoil.html&t=NWM1OGYxODE0OTJlODAwMmI1YmY2ZTc1NTA2YmYzMjZiM2M5YzE0MyxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) Council staff read Trump's tweets, and struggle to make policy to fit them. Most are kept in the dark about what Trump tells foreign leaders in his phone calls.

Trump himself is remarkably sloppy with sensitive national security information. For example, on Saturday night he discussed North Korea's latest missile launch on  a mobile phone at his table in the middle of Mar-a-Lago's private club's dining (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fwp%2F2017%2F02%2F13%2Ftrump-ran-a-campaign-based-on-intelligence-security-thats-not-how-hes-governing%2F%3Futm_term%3D.35fa7bf22eb0&t=ZmRiODI4NThhMTgyNDc2YTRhM2I3YjQ0Y2YwODQxNGJhNDBkZGRlYyxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) area, within earshot of private club members. A guest at the club even posed with the military aide who carries "the football" (the briefcase containing instructions for authorizing a nuclear attack).

The U.S. intelligence community is so convinced that Trump and his administration have been compromised by Russia that they're no longer giving the White House all of their most sensitive information, lest it end up in Putin's hands.

A senior National Security Agency official says the agency is  systematically holding back some of the "good stuff" from the White House, (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Fkevin-drum%2F2017%2F02%2Fnsa-may-be-withholding-intel-president-trump&t=MmUyNzk5OWQ5NjE5NTMyYmJmMjdlZmI0NzYxNzUxN2Q5ZTdlZWRlYyxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1) fearing Trump and his staff can't keep secrets. The intelligence community is concerned that  even the Situation Room—the room in the West Wing where the president and his top staffers get intelligence briefings—has been compromised by Russia. (http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fobserver.com%2F2017%2F02%2Fdonald-trump-administration-mike-flynn-russian-embassy%2F&t=MWM2MWY3OGEzMTU1ZjNhNGQyZjg1MWY3ZWE3NTVkZjA5ZGQwNTA3NCxpbzRVQXE1eg%3D%3D&b=t%3AhQ9Ds4P3Iv6D7mgEr8WMqg&p=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.org%2Fpost%2F157212911060&m=1)

The White House mess is Trump's own fault. He's supposed to be in charge, but it turns out he's not a tough manager. He's not even a good manager. He seems not to have any interest in managing at all.

Instead of whipping government into shape, he's whipping it into a cauldron of dysfunction and intrigue.

Just like his promises to "drain the Washington swamp" and limit the influence of big money, get Wall Street out of policy making and turn government back to the people, Trump's promise of an efficient government is another giant bait-and-switch.

Robert Reich (http://europe.newsweek.com/user/17976) is the chancellor's professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley (http://berkeley.edu/), and a senior fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, and Time magazine named him one of the 10 most effective Cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. He has written 14 books, including the best-sellers  Aftershock (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BP0OOB0/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00BP0OOB0&linkCode=as2&tag=androidbeat-20&linkId=HED2LLJBA4HPRYM2),  The Work of Nations (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679736158/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0679736158&linkCode=as2&tag=androidbeat-20&linkId=NFZN46WHLSKC22AN) and  Beyond Outrage (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345804376/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0345804376&linkCode=as2&tag=androidbeat-20&linkId=NA4VSYUYRKPSGEYE) and, most recently,  Saving Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385350570/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0385350570&linkCode=as2&tag=androidbeat-20&linkId=OAEULF3HQBICIHS4). He is also a founding editor of The American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and co-creator of the award-winning documentary Inequality for All.

Quote from: Dybuk on 15-02-2017, 23:53:27
Sta god uradi - ne valja. Pretpostavljam da bi jedan lep rat s Rusijom bio po volji? Tardovi.

Quote

The Republicans' plan for repealing the Affordable Care Act would slash financial assistance to those who need it most.
At last, the Republican Party's long-promised sparkling alternative (http://www.gq.com/story/paul-ryan-obamacare-replacement-web-site) to the Affordable Care Act has arrived, and preliminary reports suggest that new proposal improves significantly upon existing law, providing cheaper, more affordable care to millions of Americans across the board and ensuring that... who are we kidding? It's a disingenuous, regressive, and cruel proposal that will make it even more difficult and more expensive to be poor in America.
House Speaker Paul Ryan's plan, which you can read here (https://gallery.mailchimp.com/301a28247b80ab82279e92afb/files/5c7c3226-a149-4842-ab43-707b7b4720fc/Healthcare_Policy_Brief.pdf?utm_source=HouseGOP%20Staff%20List&utm_campaign=ccecba1704-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_02_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f9e806e009-ccecba1704-132524909), makes two key changes to the Affordable Care Act's scheme. As succinctly explained (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/upshot/republican-health-proposal-would-redirect-money-from-poor-to-rich.html?_r=0) by the New York Times' Margot Sanger-Katz, the ACA expanded Medicaid to provide coverage for more lower-income Americans, and created a tax credit based on income to make insurance more affordable for middle-income Americans. RyanCare, as the Republicans' proposal is now known in my household, absolutely guts these provisions, slashing Medicaid funding for "able-bodied adults" and introducing a tax credit based on age that recipients can use to pay for insurance.
Notice the difference? The purpose of the Affordable Care Act is to—surprise—make healthcare affordable to those who otherwise couldn't pay for it. RyanCare, by contrast, doesn't even pretend to give a shit what happens to poor people. When the proposal (misleadingly) (http://www.gq.com/story/obamacare-lies-florida) grouses about the injustice of providing Medicaid coverage to "able-bodied adults," it pointedly ignores the fact that said adults had no coverage before the ACA. Similarly, tying benefits to age isn't inherently irrational, since older people tend to incur higher healthcare costs. But eliminating the means test callously ignores what I thought was one of the foundational tenets of life in a developed democracy, which is that poor people shouldn't die (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-voices-20170109-story.html) because they can't pay for healthcare. America, your legislature apparently does not feel the same way.
The Affordable Care Act was the federal government's long-overdue first shot at bringing the skyrocketing costs of medical care in line with millions of Americans' diminished ability to keep pace. Was it perfect? No, no it was not. Does that mean that the rational response is to shrug, pick up another Ayn Rand novel, and quit trying altogether? Only if you're Paul Ryan (http://www.gq.com/story/republicans-russia-trump-do-the-right-things), whose concern for the plight of lower-income American stops the moment he takes office, after which, nope, he's never even heard of them, thanks for stopping by.
No word yet on whether Speaker Ryan plans to hold town halls during the upcoming congressional recess or, like so many of his Republican colleagues (http://www.gq.com/story/republicans-are-ducking-town-halls), will be busy doing very important things other than listening to his furious constituents. Between this proposal and his hilarious track record (http://www.gq.com/story/paul-ryan-obamacare-repeal-town-hall) at these things, though, it will hardly be a surprise if he chickens out.

QuoteMark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) (https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=1576)      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although some of President Trump's views on women, on race and on religion are very distasteful indeed, the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America goes beyond any individual who might happen to occupy the White House at any particular time?

QuotePaula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab) (https://hansard.parliament.uk/search/MemberContributions?house=Commons&memberId=4426)      Does my hon. Friend agree that the expression "grab 'em by the pussy" describes a sexual assault and therefore suggests that President Trump should not be afforded a visit to our Queen?

Quote

Donald Trump has already set a record for being the most unpopular new president (http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-trumps-approval-rating-keeps-plummeting-2017-2) since the invention of telephone polling. But I don't think job approval is the poll number Trump should be most worried about.
If I were him, I'd be worrying about the question the Quinnipiac University poll was asking about my leadership skills.
In a new Quinnipiac survey (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2431), out on Wednesday, only 42% of voters said they think Trump is a good leader, and 55% said he's not.
Trump's big thing is supposed to be leadership — he's the business guy, he hires the best people, and he knows how to shake things up in Washington and make America great again. Right?
In November, shortly after the election, 56% of respondents told Quinnipiac they thought Trump was a good leader, and only 38% said he wasn't. That's not too shabby for a guy who didn't even get the most votes.
But as Trump started actually doing stuff — running a transition, hiring people, issuing half-baked executive orders, firing his national security adviser after less than a month — the share of Americans willing to call him a good leader has steadily declined.
From 56% in November, it went to 49% in January, 47% earlier this month — and now 42%, or about 4 points less than his share of the popular vote.
In polling, you often analyze a question by measuring the difference between the share of respondents that gives the positive answer and the share that gives the negative one. By this measure, Trump was at plus-18 on the "good leader" question in November, and now he's at minus-13, a decline of 31 points in three months.
His term lasts another 47 months.
(Quinnipiac surveyed 1,323 adults in English or Spanish from February 16 to 21, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.)

Quote from: TrumanТрампови говори су заиста опасност по интелигенцију

Quote from: T2 on 07-03-2017, 19:40:09
Афроамериккканац је само пк (полуквалификовани) израз за чамовину.
Зашто се белци досељени у Америккку из Африккке не називају афроамериккканцима?

Quote

I've been thinking about Barack Obama lately, and not because I suspect he ordered a tap on my phones, or directed his agents to eavesdrop through my flat-screen (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/technology/cia-hacking-documents-wikileaks-iphones-tvs.html), although I like the idea of someone poring through hundreds of pages of transcripts of me ranting about how I can't seem to switch channels without turning on the Xbox.
No, I've been thinking about the former president because of a conversation we had a couple of years ago now. Obama had been saying he didn't consider terrorism an existential threat to the country, the way we once viewed the specter of nuclear war.
I asked Obama when, theoretically, he would consider Islamist terrorism to be an existential threat. I expected him to say it would be when al-Qaida or ISIS got its hands on nukes or managed to take down the computers that power our banks.
But Obama's answer was different, and immediate — clearly he'd thought about it. He said terrorism would rise to the level of an elemental threat only when we responded to some eventual attack, as a culture, by turning against each other and betraying our own ideals. I think he used the word "overreacting," though I can't be sure.
This was well before anyone considered Donald Trump a plausible president of the United States, so Obama wasn't talking about anyone in particular. Rather, he worried about some distant moment when America would surely continue to exist, but when the country as we'd known it — the world's most powerful symbol of liberty and tolerance — might not.
At the time, I will tell you, I didn't necessarily agree. It seemed to me a couple of dirty bombs or some nerve gas on the subway would constitute a pretty existential threat, at least in terms of our ability to go on with our daily lives. I still do.
But Obama's warning seems to me sadly prescient now, and more pressing than he might have thought. It turns out we didn't need another catastrophic attack to lose sight of our common convictions; we just needed a leader who would shamelessly exploit our darkest fears, with no regard for repercussions.

I don't think I'm being unfair here. Trump's latest attempt (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/trump-travel-ban-iraq/) at a travel ban from Muslim countries, which exempts legal residents and sidesteps an indefinite hold on Syrian refugees, would almost be a reasonable, cautious policy decision, were it not for two factors.
One is that we already vet these potential immigrants more closely (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html?_r=0) than we do anyone else entering the country, and Trump and his team are the only ones who insist that terrorists are flooding the country disguised as refugees. The second is that we know what Trump is really after here, because he's referred to his policy previously — if Rudy Giuliani can be believed (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/29/trump-asked-for-a-muslim-ban-giuliani-says-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/) — as a ban on Muslims, period.
And here's what else is going on that you may have missed: Over the past few weeks, three Indian men have been shot in separate attacks (http://www.vox.com/latest-news/2017/3/6/14831620/violent-attacks-indians-us-anti-immigrant-trump) around the country, two of them fatally, apparently because they could be mistaken for Muslims by ignorant extremists.
Trump condemned that brutality, but not before he'd created a new office at the Justice Department called VOICE — Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement, which is pretty much a bunch of words jumbled together in search of an acronym. His announcement of that entirely unneeded initiative seemed to me a chilling moment in his overrated address to Congress; it called to mind Nazi-era propaganda meant to blame every societal ill on an alien race.
There's a famous short story by Shirley Jackson that I remember reading in school — it's called "The Lottery." Basically, it's about a small-town ritual where whoever picks the wrong number in a random lottery gets stoned to death. The point is that a fearful mob can easily be manipulated into turning on one of its own and distorting the norms of civic life.Obama isn't the only president who foresaw the danger of this dynamic. George W. Bush feared exactly this response after the terrorist attacks of 2001. As reactionary as Bush could be in world affairs, he made it a priority in the days after those attacks to visit with American Muslims, to make clear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liudIJFg8UQ) they were not the enemy, to caution the citizenry against rash and hateful reactions.
In general, leaving aside the occasional, isolated outburst, the governing establishments of both parties have acquitted themselves well in confronting this new age of terror and resurgent white nationalism. Americans don't all agree on much, but we've generally accepted the idea that the country's legacy as a nation of immigrants, indifferent to race or religion, is at the bedrock of what we consider to be our singular place in the world.
This is probably why we've had so much trouble finding any consensus on what to do about unlawful immigration. At its core, the problem — and it is a problem — pits two of our seminal ideals against each other: rule of law, on one hand, and compassion for outsiders, on the other.
But Trump isn't of the governing class, and he doesn't exist to sort out painful contradictions in public policy. From the moment he entered the political fray, he has breezily, almost thoughtlessly breached the boundaries of what used to be responsible political debate.
He's an entertainer (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-not-orwellian-hes-the-distracter-in-chief-100035222.html), fueled, rather than repulsed, by the raw emotion of a mob. Trump looks at the fear that defines so much of America in the moment — an entirely reasonable fear not only of foreign terrorism, but also of fast-spreading automation, new and destabilizing global markets, substance abuse and a kind of spiritual dislocation — and he gives it a name.
Otherness.
Not only Muslims, but Mexicans. Not only the poor and powerless, but the educated and the politically correct, the news media whom he calls "the enemy of the American people." He'll happily lay waste to the granite cornerstones of the democracy — tolerance, pluralism, a free press — as long as the mob behind him stays loud and true.
He's not alone. If you can believe what you read in the papers, the nationalist backlash Trump embodies is soon to sweep across Europe, too. America is a global beacon, still, but not in a way that should comfort our timid political leadership.
I've heard from a lot of readers in recent weeks, maybe people accustomed to my criticism of ideological dogmas generally over the years, who wonder when I'm going to write something affirming about this president.
The answer is: when he acts like one. (And reading from a teleprompter for an hour is a mighty low bar.)
It's not the agenda that worries me especially; policies come and go, good and bad, and that's why we debate them. It's the cultural virus Trump seems willing to unleash, the meanness seeping across a land where "go back to your own country" is becoming a common mantra. It's the uncomplicated, unconsidered assault on ideals that really do make America exceptional.
And it makes me wonder. What if Obama was right? What if this is the threat, more than any bomb or missile, that leads us down a path from which there's no going back?
When does the governing majority in Washington stand up and say: "Enough"?

Quote from: T2 on 07-03-2017, 19:40:09
Афроамериккканац је само пк (полуквалификовани) израз за чамовину.
Зашто се белци досељени у Америккку из Африккке не називају афроамериккканцима?

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-03-2017, 18:12:47
Dobro ti izrazi najviše služe da se zaobiđe razvrstavanje po bojama, ali svakako ne mogu da izdrže neku duboku analizu - tako su potomci Navahoa ili Seminola "Native Americans" a čovek evropskog porekla rođen u SAD to nije (on je "Caucasian"), tako su ljudi poreklom iz podsaharske Afrike "African American" a ljudi poreklom iz Magreba nisu, Amerikanci kineskog ili Japanskog porekla su "Asian Americans" ali iranskog i afganistanskog nisu itd. No, to je razvrstavanje učinjeno u dobroj nameri, da se izbegnu boje, plus da se onima koji odstupaju od belog "standarda" doda "Americans" kako bi se podvuklo da oni nisu stranci u svojoj zemlji itd. Ne treba od ovoga tražiti egzaktnu nauku kad je u pitanju ekvilibristički čin unutrašnje diplomatije koji traje.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-03-2017, 18:20:38
xrofl xrofl

Dobro, bre, kažem, ne treba ovde tražiti egzaktnu nauku, u pitanju je pokušaj da se napravi društvo u kome će se ljudi osećati svoji na svome čak i kad su jako različiti. Da li je to uopšte moguće i da li je ovo pravi način je svakako za raspravu, ali nije u pitanju nekakav "naučni" represivni mehanizam.

Quote from: T2 on 11-03-2017, 18:39:14
Већ су зомбирани.

Quote from: akhnaton on 11-03-2017, 18:37:22

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-03-2017, 18:20:38
xrofl xrofl

Dobro, bre, kažem, ne treba ovde tražiti egzaktnu nauku, u pitanju je pokušaj da se napravi društvo u kome će se ljudi osećati svoji na svome čak i kad su jako različiti. Da li je to uopšte moguće i da li je ovo pravi način je svakako za raspravu, ali nije u pitanju nekakav "naučni" represivni mehanizam.

Nije naučni, ali jeste represivni. Posebno to svoj na svome. to samo vodi u podele, koje se potiskuju državnom i medijskom represijom, a onda eksplodiraju. Tako sada imamo afričke studije (crne studije), pa azijske studije, pa LBGT studije, pa feminstičke studije, da ne nabrajam dalje. Pa histerično traženje safe space-a. Umesto jednostavnog: svi smo mi ljudi, i to treba da bude jedini identitet koji se priznaje. Rasni, polni, jebeni verski, i ostali identiteti su izmišljotine koje ljude dele, umesto da ih kako su to smislili pobornici političke korektnosti čine srećnima i tolerantnima.  Uzmimo za primer našeg najboljeg životinjskog prijatelja psa. Koliko rasa ima? Zamislimo da su psi kao ljudi i da svaka od rasa za sebe traži  safe space i priznavanje različitosti... pa onda ne bi bilo ni jednog jedinog čopora. Umesto srećnijeg društva dobićemo zombije koji se pred svakim drugačijim ne samo sklanjaju nego mu se i klanjaju....a svi se zajedno klanjaju robovlasnicima.

Quote from: T2 on 11-03-2017, 18:50:11
Лакше их је издресирати него псе.
Па на промграмирање додај мало и кинте за комесаре, који убеђују неодлучне да тако треба и да све супротно је погрешно, али и опасно.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-03-2017, 18:57:09

Quote from: akhnaton on 11-03-2017, 18:37:22

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-03-2017, 18:20:38
xrofl xrofl

Dobro, bre, kažem, ne treba ovde tražiti egzaktnu nauku, u pitanju je pokušaj da se napravi društvo u kome će se ljudi osećati svoji na svome čak i kad su jako različiti. Da li je to uopšte moguće i da li je ovo pravi način je svakako za raspravu, ali nije u pitanju nekakav "naučni" represivni mehanizam.

Nije naučni, ali jeste represivni. Posebno to svoj na svome. to samo vodi u podele, koje se potiskuju državnom i medijskom represijom, a onda eksplodiraju. Tako sada imamo afričke studije (crne studije), pa azijske studije, pa LBGT studije, pa feminstičke studije, da ne nabrajam dalje. Pa histerično traženje safe space-a. Umesto jednostavnog: svi smo mi ljudi, i to treba da bude jedini identitet koji se priznaje. Rasni, polni, jebeni verski, i ostali identiteti su izmišljotine koje ljude dele, umesto da ih kako su to smislili pobornici političke korektnosti čine srećnima i tolerantnima.  Uzmimo za primer našeg najboljeg životinjskog prijatelja psa. Koliko rasa ima? Zamislimo da su psi kao ljudi i da svaka od rasa za sebe traži  safe space i priznavanje različitosti... pa onda ne bi bilo ni jednog jedinog čopora. Umesto srećnijeg društva dobićemo zombije koji se pred svakim drugačijim ne samo sklanjaju nego mu se i klanjaju....a svi se zajedno klanjaju robovlasnicima.

Svakako, prednost identitetske politike nad svim ostalim je zaslužna i za zaoštravanje klasnih podela u SAD (a i u ostatku razvjenijeg sveta, razume se), no, opet, ona jeste izdanak dobre namere da se razlike prepoznaju i u odnosu na njih kreira društveni odgovor koji će biti pravičan. Rawls i njegovi sledbenici nisu gubili iz vida klasu ili ekonomske zbiljnosti kada su pisali teoriju pravde, to se izgubilo u šumu koji proizvodi internet.

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 22-03-2017, 14:05:59
Kako nisam, onda ni ne razumijem pitanje ako nisam odgovorio.

Ovo što se radi Trampu je vučićevska mediokratska formacija.

Quote from: scallop on 22-03-2017, 18:11:10
Da prostiš, Meho, ti si neolib handrid procents, pa su mi jasni tvoji stavovi.

QuoteImagine you are Donald Trump. You've never cared all that much about health care policy. To the extent that you've thought about it, you just regurgitated the generic Republican talking points about Obamacare being a disaster, and were sure that if you ever looked into it, you could easily replace it with "something terrific." (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/249697-trump-replace-obamacare-with-something-terrific)
Then you became a Republican president. For seven years, Republicans had campaigned on repealing Obamacare, without settling on a replacement plan. So you had no choice but for this to be a high-priority legislative issue.
And Paul Ryan was ready to go. After all, Obamacare repeal was a great chance to achieve his lifelong goal (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/17/14960358/paul-ryan-medicaid-keg) of making the rich richer and further immiserating the poor so they'd finally learn to stop being so lazy. And once the town hall protests began, Ryan surely knew time was limited. He pushed to do it now, and you went along, because, why not?
Now the repeal bill is shaping up to be a disaster. It is deeply unpopular. By one poll, only 17 percent (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/23/15042748/republican-health-vote-time-delay) of people approve of it. Groups on all sides are blasting it as terrible. You were even forced to acknowledge it would actively harm (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/16/14945030/trump-tucker-carlson-health-care) many of the people who voted for you.
And worse, you are far, far out of your depth policy-wise (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/17/14961066/donald-trump-gop-health-bill). As it turns out (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-nobody-knew-health-care-could-be-so-complicated.html), "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated."
And all these warring factions within the party. What a pain! Maybe, given time, you could work out a deal. But that would require actually understanding the details of the policy. And who has the patience for that?
But still: You're a salesman. You're used to selling crap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw). You can get out there, tell wavering Republicans (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-health-care-obamacare-repeal-236281) that if they don't vote for this, "I honestly think many of you will lose your seats in 2018."
Maybe you'll get lucky and the votes will fall in line. Then you can take credit. They'll call you a genius for bringing together the bickering factions, getting everybody to vote for it.
And if not, hey, you've sold crap products before and then moved on. Everybody knows you're a great salesman, and if you couldn't sell the product, it must be somebody else's fault. The product must really be a mess.
During the campaign, Paul Ryan had undermined you. And you don't forgive grudges. Now, if Obamacare fails, you can pin it on Ryan. He took the lead. He said he could make it happen. Clearly he failed. What a loser! You did everything you could to help, but it was Ryan's process in the House. And it was a mess!
So, force a vote. If it happens, everybody will be saying, What a brilliant move to force the vote, instead of giving everybody more time to bicker. And you can take credit for bringing the Freedom Caucus on board when Ryan obviously couldn't.
And if it fails, great. Health care reform was a losing issue anyway, and it was way too complicated. Now you can move on to something else you care more about. And best of all, Paul Ryan is now a failure. Maybe his caucus will revolt and finally get rid of him. Serves the guy right.But then what?If this at all resembles how Trump sees the situation, it suggests a very hard road ahead for him, and even more chaos.
Yes, health care is complicated. But so is tax reform. So is infrastructure, if he ever wants to move on to that. Pretty much anything that requires legislation is complicated (http://https//www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/trumps-capitol-hill-problem.html?_r=0), both from a technical bill-writing perspective, but even mores from a political herding-the-cats and working-out-the-compromises perspective. It's clear Trump doesn't have the patience or the mind for either.
Trump's business career may have taught him that if one scam promotion fails, you can just move on to the next. (Okay, Trump Steaks didn't sell, how about Trump Vodka? Okay, Trump Vodka didn't sell, how about Trump University?) But politics is different. Political capital is a much more limited resource than brand equity. Once you spend it, it's very hard to earn it back. Once you threaten to punish potential defectors, and those defectors buck your threat, future threats look a lot weaker.
Meanwhile, if Ryan can't get his members in line on the one thing they all campaigned on for six years, it's hard to imagine how he'll get everybody in line for anything else. His authority will be considerably weaker after this debacle. He might not even survive as speaker. Either way, there'll be plenty of blame to go around among competing factions within the GOP. And if there's chaos in the House and a leadership vacuum, much of Trump's proposed legislative agenda is just not going to happen.
Instead, the real winner of this fiasco will likely be the Steve Bannon wing (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/bannon-health-care-bill.html) of the Trump administration. With Ryan weakened, his White House allies Reince Priebus and Mike Pence will also be weakened, and Bannon's people will have even more sway. In fact, the way this has all played out almost looks like Bannon has played Trump perfectly. Maybe my headline should even have been "Why Bannon wanted to force a vote on health care."

Quote
A major House committee chair dealt the Republican bill to replace the Affordable Care Act another blow as he announced Friday he would not be voting in favor of the plan as it is now written.
Republican Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee — which is tasked with appropriating discretionary federal funds — wrote on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/rfrelinghuysen/posts/816598255160874) that he could not vote for the present iteration of the American Health Care Act.
"Seven years after enactment of Obamacare, I wanted to support legislation that made positive changes to rescue healthcare in America," Frelinghuysen wrote. "Unfortunately, the legislation before the House today is currently unacceptable as it would place significant new costs and barriers to care on my constituents in New Jersey.
"In addition to the loss of Medicaid coverage for so many people in my Medicaid-dependent state, the denial of essential health benefits in the individual market raise serious coverage and cost issues," Frelinghuysen went on. "I remain hopeful that the American Health Care Act will be further modified. We need to get this right for all Americans."
After it became clear that the bill was in serious danger of not being passed through the House on Thursday, House Republicans pushed the vote back. It is now expected to take place Friday, with GOP leadership aides saying the vote would take place between 3:45 and 4:45 p.m. ET. A Republican source told Business Insider on Friday that the vote would take place after markets close at 4 p.m.

President Trump is trying to turn up the heat on undecided conservative and moderate Republicans. Through Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, the president delivered an ultimatum to House Republicans on Thursday evening: Vote for the AHCA or Obamacare stays in place.
On Friday, Trump targeted the House Freedom Caucus — which consists of some of the most conservative representatives — on Twitter.
"The irony is that the Freedom Caucus, which is very pro-life and against Planned Parenthood, allows P.P. to continue if they stop this plan!" he said (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/845249587178819584).

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 22-03-2017, 21:28:57
Šta da radimo kad su svi ideološki šuntavi...

Druga alternativa su Dveri, aj na selo.

Quote from: scallop on 22-03-2017, 21:54:55
Majstoreeee!

Quote
Washington (AFP) - Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office on Friday evening in an unfamiliar position -- having to own failure.
His health care reform, his very first significant legislative proposal, had fallen at the first hurdle in a friendly Congress.
For sure, the 70-year-old businessman had faltered before -- from bankrupt casinos to shuttered hotels. But until now bravado was enough to keep his brand intact, and carry him all the way to the White House.
Now -- in the fiercest spotlight in the world, as president of the United States -- there was nowhere to hide.
Fittingly perhaps, Trump addressed his failure from behind a desk in the Oval Office.
It was in that same spot that Harry Truman kept a sign that encapsulated all the pressures and accountability of an imperial presidency: "The buck stops here."
Trump was not ready to take quite that much ownership, although he did profess to be "a little surprised" by the plan's failure. We got close, he said, as if it mattered.
But Trump offered surprisingly little criticism for his brothers-in-arms. That may come when the dust falls.
His criticism of the Democrats -- none of whom were ever going to vote for a bill that dismantled Barack Obama's signature health reform -- felt almost formulaic.
At the end of the day Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House, they should not have needed Democratic votes.
There was no avoiding it: the self-professed "closer" had struck out.
"Trump, it turns out, is not actually able to put together any deal that he wants," wrote Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, on CNN.com.
"In this case, he was the loser."
- 'He blinked. Bigly ' -
That leaves Trump, after just two months in office, facing a dilemma that may define the rest of his presidency: can he continue with the bareknuckle, alpha male approach that brought him to the summit of global politics.
His erratic tweets have already called his credibility into doubt, most seriously when he accused his predecessor Obama -- without proof -- of wiretapping his phones.
His approach to policymaking -- all about speed, with little consultation -- has also shown its limits as his order to curb immigration from some Muslim-majority nations was twice frozen by the courts.
Some lessons from the health care debate offer ominous signs.
Amid threats of retribution and orders to "march or die," more than two dozen Republicans still refused to back what Trump touted as the "greatest" health care plan.
"Donald Trump played a game of chicken with House Republicans. Then he blinked. Bigly," headlined the Washington Post's editorial on the health care debacle.
Trump's bluff can be called, after all, and many Republicans who supported him only reluctantly, may now smell blood.
Not to mention foreign leaders like those in North Korea, China, Russia or Iran, who owe him no allegiance and are playing a higher stakes geopolitical game.
And Trump is unlikely to get any relief from Democrats, loath to back a president mired in scandal over his team's links to Russia, even if they backed his proposals.
It is unclear whether the septuagenarian could change if he wanted to.
Domestic allies and friendly diplomats report that in private Trump shows little mastery of the details needed to push policy forward.
In one recent discussion, an ally painstakingly outlined an urgent problem item-by-item, only for Trump to promptly change the subject.
Even aides admit Trump showed more interest in making the health care sale than in what he was selling.
- Learning on the job -
When it comes to substance, the ill-fated health care bill put contradictions between free market Republicans and the economic populism embodied by Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon into sharp relief.
The bill, if successful, would have left millions of the Americans who voted for Trump without coverage, leaving some inside the White House to wish it dead.
The ideological gap within the Republican party, masked by years united in opposition, was just too big to span.
And bridging that divide will prove just as difficult when it comes to choosing between paying for programs for the poor and tax cuts for companies and the wealthy.
After just over 60 days in office, Trump is in many ways still learning on the job.He could yet steady the ship: George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton saw similar turbulent starts before shuffling staff and buckling down.
But that, too, would require a change of tack for a leader until now quick to deflect responsibility for his setbacks: blaming the "dishonest" media, intelligence leakers within the government, or biased judges.
"Now, in the aftermath of his failure on health care, it is he who is not standing on stable ground," wrote Zelizer. "The truth is that he might just have no one to blame but himself."

Quote

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif. (Reuters) - Supporters of President Donald Trump holding a rally on a popular southern California beach clashed with counter-protesters on Saturday and four people were arrested, law enforcement said.

Multiple fights broke out and at least one Trump supporter was doused with pepper spray when pro-Trump demonstrators marching along Bolsa Chica State Beach encountered a small group opposed to the Republican president who had gathered to denounce the rally.
Four counter-protesters were arrested, three for illegal use of pepper spray and one for assault and battery, Kevin Pearsall, a spokesman for the California State Parks Police said on Saturday evening.

The fights appeared to start in the early afternoon when around a dozen anti-Trump protesters dressed in all black refused to move from a bike path to allow a larger group of pro-Trump supporters taking part in the Make America Great Again rally to pass. The confrontation escalated into a fight with more skirmishes quickly breaking out.
At least one person was pepper-sprayed by an anti-Trump protester, Pearsall said. Park police estimated that 2,000 Trump supporters flocked to the stretch of coastline located south of the ocean-side community of Huntington Beach. Around 20 counter-protesters attended, Pearsall said.

Known as Surf City, U.S.A., Huntington Beach is located some 40 miles (64 km) south of Los Angeles.
Video footage from social media uploaded to the Los Angeles Times' website showed a chaotic scene with men fighting in the sand and a group of around 20 Trump supporters, some carrying Trump flags, chasing a man in a black mask away from the beach and on to a freeway. The man was stopped by members of the California Highway Patrol, the newspaper said.

The masked man had used pepper spray on a female rally organizer and was set upon by a group of Trump supporters, the newspaper reported.
Demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration have drawn hundreds of thousands since he took office in January. Smaller rallies have been staged across the country in support of Trump.

On Saturday, Trump praised his supporters.
"Thanks you for all of the Trump Rallies today. Amazing support. We will all MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" He said in a message on Twitter.

(Reporting by Patrick T. Fallon; Writing by Timothy Mclaughlin; Editing by Sandra Maler)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 26-03-2017, 08:17:22
In one recent discussion, an ally painstakingly outlined an urgent problem item-by-item, only for Trump to promptly change the subject.

Quote
Quietly, while Americans have been focused on the ongoing drama over repealing the Affordable Care Act and the new revelations about the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, President Trump has been busy dramatically expanding the American troop presence inside Syria. And virtually no one in Washington has noticed. Americans have a right to know what Trump is planning and whether this will lead to an Iraq-style occupation of Syria for years to come. Without any official notification, Trump sent 500 new American troops into Syria, ostensibly to take part in the upcoming assault on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa. News reports suggest this deployment may just be the tip of the iceberg, with some saying that the plan is for hundreds more American troops to be added to the fight in the coming weeks. No one actually knows how many troops are inside Syria now, because the administration has largely tried to keep the build-up a secret. This deployment poses a significant, potentially catastrophic risk for the United States and the future of Syria and the Middle East. Congress cannot be silent on this matter. I have long been against putting U.S. troops on the ground in Syria—I opposed the idea during the Obama administration and I oppose it now, because I believe we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the Iraq War if we try to force political stability simply through the barrel of a gun. I would urge my colleagues who have not focused on the question of U.S. troop presence in Syria to, at the very least, demand the administration answer two basic questions before signing off on the money to fund this dangerous escalation. First, what is our mission and what is our exit strategy? The public explanation of the military escalation has been to prepare for the assault on Raqqa. Taking Raqqa is a necessary and long-desired objective. The problem lies in making U.S. troops an indispensible part of the invasion force, which likely will require us to stay and become an indispensible part of the occupation force as well. This is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I see no reason why we wouldn't face the same trap in Syria. But if this is not the administration's plan, they should be explicit about this. They should assure Congress and the American public that we are in Syria simply until Raqqa falls, and no longer. There are other important questions to ask. Recently, Trump sent a small group of Special Forces operators to Manbij to keep the peace between Kurdish and Turkish-backed forces fighting for control of this remote section of northern Syria. This suggests our military mission is much broader—and more complicated—than simply helping to retake Raqqa. Many Syria experts agree that once Raqqa is taken from ISIS, the fighting is just beginning. The contest then begins between the various proxy forces (Saudi, Iranian, Russian, Turkish, Kurdish) over who ultimately controls the city. Will U.S. forces leave at that point, or does Trump's plan envision that we will stay to mediate future control of large portions of the battlespace? This would be a mirror of Iraq, in which thousands of Americans died trying to figure out the post-Saddam settlement of accounts between the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds. And it could result in just as much American bloodshed. Second, do we have a political strategy or just a military strategy? This past Thursday, I joined other members of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee for lunch with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. I was glad that Tillerson was willing to open the doors of the State Department to a bipartisan group of Senators, and our discussion was honest and frank. In the meeting, Tillerson showed admirable candor in admitting that the military strategy was far ahead of the diplomatic strategy in Syria. But this was actually a dramatic understatement. Unless a secret plan exists that Trump is keeping from U.S. Senators and his own Secretary of State, there is absolutely no plan for who controls post-ISIS Raqqa, or post-Assad Syria. The obstacles to a political plan for the future of Raqqa increase by the week. U.S. military leaders want to rely on Kurdish and Arab fighters to retake Raqqa, but hope that the Kurds will then abandon the city after they lose hundreds or thousands of their soldiers in the assault. Even if this fantasy were to become reality, it would come at a price – the Kurds would expect something in return for their effort. And today, we have no idea how to execute this two-step without having peace undermined by the Turks, who remain violently opposed to giving territory the Kurds. To add complications, the Russian and Iranian-backed forces, sitting just outside Raqqa today, are not going to allow for a U.S.-backed Arab or Arab/Kurdish government to be peacefully installed inside the city. They will want a piece of the action, and we have no credible plan to accommodate them today. Without a political plan for the future of Raqqa, a military plan is practically useless. Yes, getting ISIS out of Raqqa is a victory in and of itself, but if we set into motion a series of events that simply prolongs the broader conflict, ISIS will easily pick up the pieces and use the ongoing turmoil to regroup and reemerge. We should have learned in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya that a military victory without a plan for what comes next is really not a victory at all. But unbelievably, we seem on the verge of making this mistake again, because of (understandable) enthusiasm for taking the fight to a vicious enemy. I want ISIS gone. I want them destroyed.  But I want it done the right way. I do not want to Americans to die and billions of dollars to be wasted in a war that makes the same mistakes as the disastrous American invasion of Iraq. And I certainly don't want the war to start in secret, without Congress even noticing that it's starting. Congress needs to get in the game and start asking questions - before it's too late. 

Quote from: scallop on 27-03-2017, 14:17:50
Molim da se preskoče Macove procene. Kao i obično, veze nemaju sa realnošću - virtuality.

Quote from: mac on 27-03-2017, 15:19:31
kad me Bata neargumentovano kritikuje

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump signed a handful of measures Monday rolling back Obama-era regulations under the Congressional Review Act.

It's part of a larger GOP effort to eliminate an array of regulations issued during President Barack Obama's final months in office and comes days after Trump's effort to repeal and replace "Obamacare" failed. Trump has made overturning what he deems government over-reach a centerpiece of his first months in office.

"I will keep working with Congress, with every agency, and most importantly, the American people, until we eliminate every unnecessary, harmful and job-killing regulation that we can find," Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. "We have a lot more coming."

Two of the regulations nullified Monday had to do with school performance and teacher preparation programs.

One, issued by the Education Department in October, required that federally funded teacher preparation programs be evaluated based on the academic outcomes of those teachers' students. Republican senators opposed the rules, arguing such matters should be left to the states.

The other aimed to help states identify failing schools and come up with plans to improve them.

Another rule nullified by Trump required federal land managers to consider climate change and other long-term effects of proposed development on public lands. The regulation had been imposed by the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees more than 245 million acres of public lands.

Republicans argued the rule, finalized in December, shifted decision-making authority away from state and local officials to the federal government. The signing came the day before Trump was expected to reverse Obama's signature effort to address climate change, the Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants.

The final rule targeted by Republicans had been aimed at forcing government contractors to disclose violations of federal labor laws as they sought more work. The "blacklisting rule" required contractors to disclose violations of 14 federal labor laws, including those pertaining to workplace safety, wages and discrimination.

The White House argued the rule would "bog down" the federal procurement process, while business groups said that it would increase compliance costs.

Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration have made curbing government regulation a top priority this year. Dozens of resolutions pulling back various Obama-era rules have been introduced under an expedited process established through the Congressional Review Act. Under that process, a regulation is invalidated when a simple majority of both chambers pass a joint resolution of disapproval and the president signs it.

Quote

Just when you thought German chancellor Angela Merkel's visit couldn't have been any worse, it has been recently reported that President Donald Trump actually printed out an invoice for $374 billion-money Trump believes Germany owes to NATO, with interest-and handed it to Merkel during their closed doors meeting, The Sunday Times  (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-dismisses-white-houses-intimidating-300bn-bill-for-defence-dl7dk629k)reported (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/germany-dismisses-white-houses-intimidating-300bn-bill-for-defence-dl7dk629k).
This is embarrassing for so many reasons. First, it's just plain rude to invite a guest into your home and then hand them a bill. Emily Post must have written a chapter on this somewhere.
Furthermore, this is simply not how NATO defence funding works.
According to CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/news/nato-funding-explained/), NATO sets a target for how much countries should spend on their own defence forces, the theory being that if all NATO countries have a strong defence, it will benefit all members. Currently the target for spending is 2% of a country's gross domestic product. Germany currently spends 1.2% of GDP on defence while the United States spends 3.61%. Only the U.S., Britain, Estonia, Poland, and Greece actually exceed 2% GDP defence spending.
But 2% is merely a guideline, and the money does not go to NATO as Trump seems to believe. It just means that Germany is spending 0.8% less of its GDP on its own defence, so even if Germany technically "owes" $374 billion in defence spending, it owes those funds to Germany's armed forces, not NATO. Trump basically handed Merkel a bill stating that she owes herself money.
"The president has a very unorthodox view on NATO defence spending," a source told the Times. "The alliance is not a club with a membership fee. The commitments relate to countries' investment in their defence budgets."
Unorthodox is one way to put it. Crazy is another. It's going to be a long four years, folks.

Quote
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- The world's largest humanitarian crisis in 70 years has been declared in three African countries on the brink of famine, just as President Donald Trump's proposed foreign aid cuts threaten to pull the United States from its historic role as the world's top emergency donor.
If the deep cuts are approved by Congress and the U.S. does not contribute to Africa's current crisis, experts warn that the continent's growing drought and famine could have far-ranging effects, including a new wave of migrants heading to Europe and possibly more support for Islamic extremist groups.
The conflict-fueled hunger crises in Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan have culminated in a trio of potential famines hitting almost simultaneously. Nearly 16 million people in the three countries are at risk of dying within months.
Famine already has been declared in two counties of South Sudan and 1 million people there are on the brink of dying from a lack of food, U.N. officials have said. Somalia has declared a state of emergency over drought and 2.9 million of its people face a food crisis that could become a famine, according to the U.N. And in northeastern Nigeria, severe malnutrition is widespread in areas affected by violence from Boko Haram extremists.


"We are facing the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the United Nations," Stephen O'Brien, the U.N. humanitarian chief, told the U.N. Security Council after a visit this month to Somalia and South Sudan.
At least $4.4 billion is needed by the end of March to avert a hunger "catastrophe" in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in late February.
But according to U.N. data, only 10 percent of the necessary funds have been received so far.
Trump's proposed budget would "absolutely" cut programs that help some of the most vulnerable people on Earth, Mick Mulvaney, the president's budget director, told reporters last week. The budget would "spend less money on people overseas and more money on people back home," he said.
The United States traditionally has been the largest donor to the U.N. and gives more foreign aid to Africa than any other continent. In 2016 it gave more than $2 billion to the U.N.'s World Food Program, or almost a quarter of its total budget. That is expected to be reduced under Trump's proposed budget, according to former and current U.S. government officials.


"I've never seen this kind of threat to what otherwise has been a bipartisan consensus that food aid and humanitarian assistance programs are morally essential and critical to our security," Steven Feldstein, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration, told The Associated Press.
In an interview last week with the AP in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected the proposed cuts to foreign aid. "America being a force is a lot more than building up the Defense Department," he said. "Diplomacy is important, extremely important, and I don't think these reductions at the State Department are appropriate because many times diplomacy is a lot more effective — and certainly cheaper — than military engagement."
The hunger crises in Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan are all the more painful because they are man-made, experts said, though climate change has had some impact on Somalia and Nigeria's situations, said J. Peter Pham, the head of the Africa Center at the Atlantic Council.
South Sudan has been entrenched in civil war since late 2013 that has killed tens of thousands and prevented widespread cultivation of food. In Nigeria and Somalia, extremist groups Boko Haram and al-Shabab have proven stubborn to defeat, and both Islamic organizations still hold territory that complicates aid efforts.
If Trump's foreign aid cuts are approved, the humanitarian funding burden for the crises would shift to other large donors like Britain. But the U.S.'s influential role in rallying global support will slip.
"Without significant contributions from the U.S. government, it is less able to catalyze contributions from other donors and meet even minimal life-saving needs," Nancy Lindborg, president of the United States Institute of Peace, said in prepared remarks to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, neighboring African countries will feel the immediate consequences of famine, experts said. On Thursday, the U.N. refugee chief said Uganda was at a "breaking point" after more than 570,000 South Sudanese refugees had arrived since July alone.
Others fleeing hunger could aim for Europe instead.
"We are going to see pressure on neighboring countries, in some cases people joining traditional migration routes both from the Sahel into Europe, or south into various destinations in Africa," Joseph Siegle, director of research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, told the AP.
"You have 19 countries facing some degree of food stress in Africa, and three of them are facing famine conditions. All three of them are facing conflict, and the vast majority of the countries facing more serious crises are non-democratic governments," Siegle said.
He described a series of possible consequences. Most likely there will be increased flows of people migrating from Somalia and the vast Sahel region north into Libya, where trafficking routes are a valuable source of finance for the Islamic State, he said.
Closer to home, people from South Sudan and Somalia seeking food likely will strain the resources of neighboring countries where political will and goodwill to refugees can be fleeting, said Mohammed Abdiker, director of operations and emergencies with the International Organization for Migration.
The regional consequences will depend on how the international community responds, Abdiker said.
Alex De Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation, summed up the situation: "Famine can be prevented if we want."

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 03-04-2017, 13:52:43
Dajdžest US politike

http://m.journal-neo.org/2017/04/01/us-foreign-policy-hegemony-or-stability-not-both/

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 04-04-2017, 13:03:10
Jel ovaj Kotler Demokrata?

Quote from: Palmer Eldrič on 04-04-2017, 20:35:33
Majstorski! Znači marža + provizija 110%, 100% potroši na kocku i žene sumnjivog morala, a živi od 10%!

Quote
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services quietly over the weekend released new guidance (https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-0142-H-1BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf) that computer programmers are no longer presumed to be eligible for H-1B visas.
What it means: This aligns with the administration's focus on reserving the temporary visas for very high-skilled (and higher-paid) professionals while encouraging low- and mid-level jobs to go to American workers instead. The new guidance affects applications for the lottery for 2018 fiscal year that opened Monday.
What comes next: Companies applying for H-1B visas for computer programming positions will have to submit additional evidence showing that the jobs are complex or specialized and require professional degrees. Entry-level wages attached to these visa applications will also get more scrutiny. The change appears to target outsourcing companies, who typically employ lower-paid, lower-level computer workers.
Lawsuits possible: Releasing this policy change at the start of the application filing window is going to rankle companies who used 17-year-old policy guidance to apply for this year's visas. Some companies may challenge the guidance on the grounds that USCIS didn't provide sufficient notice of the change.
UPDATE (6:15 pm Eastern): A USCIS spokeswoman said the guidance is "not a policy change" and is just clarifying existing policy for a Nebraska call service center.

   
• But an immigration attorney following this process said the memo would increase scrutiny for H1-B applicants for the computer programmer job category. The attorney added that most Silicon Valley companies don't hire entry level programmers, and so the real impact of the change would be felt by offshore companies. "It's not an unsubstantial development," he said.
• There is some confusion over the impact of the new guidance. Bloomberg says (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-03/new-h-1b-guidelines-crack-down-on-computer-programmer-jobs) it would "bring more scrutiny to [applications] for computer programmers doing the simplest jobs." Endgadget reports  (https://www.engadget.com/2017/04/03/computer-programmers-can-still-qualify-for-h-1b-visas/)a misinterpretation of the guidance "caused many to panic" but programmers can still qualify for H-1B visas.
• Separately, USCIS announced new measures today to rein in abuse of the H-1B program (https://www.axios.com/feds-zero-in-on-h-1b-abuse-at-it-outsourcing-firms-2343025323.html).

Quote
Last September, after the handbag designer Ivanka Trump declared that childcare for working families would be her top policy priority if her father were president, I wrote a column (https://www.yahoo.com/news/ivanka-trump-white-house-czar-090028682.html) about what I thought would happen if Donald Trump won.
My fear was that Trump would run his White House the way he had run his business empire — as a right of inheritance. The convention in Cleveland had made it clear to anyone paying attention that Trump wasn't running as a Republican, but rather as the patriarch of a celebrity clan. I called the column "Ivanka Trump, White House czar."
I was wrong. In an administration where women play only supportive roles, Ivanka has settled for assistant White House czar. The bigger job belongs to her 36-year-old husband, Jared Kushner, whose portfolio so far includes brokering Middle East peace, negotiating trade deals, reconfiguring the federal government, stamping out opioids, establishing ties with China and Mexico and — as of this week — surveying our strategy in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/02/politics/jared-kushner-iraq/).
I guess all that's left is to put him in charge of financial regulation and criminal prosecutions, and then the entire aging Cabinet can spend the next three-plus years swimming and swing dancing at Mar-a-Lago, like characters from "Cocoon."


A raft of critics (https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/04/04/us/politics/ap-us-white-house-ethics.html) have recently come after Jared and Ivanka, alleging that they don't know a thing about policy (well, yeah) and that they're awash in ethical conflicts (like that matters). But the problem with Washington's newest power couple is larger and more pervasive than any of that, and it illuminates the underlying darkness in this administration.
Before we get to that, though, let's put all this in some context. It's not uncommon for presidents to rely on the guidance of spouses or other relatives, as we all do. But you'd have to go back to the early 1960s to find anything remotely comparable to the familial power center in Trump's White House.
I've just read a terrific forthcoming book called "The Revolution of Robert Kennedy," by the historian John R. Bohrer, which reminded me of how blatantly the Kennedys made their White House a family affair. It was Joseph Kennedy, the president's father, who decreed that another of his sons, Robert, would be the attorney general. No one spoke to John Kennedy more, or had more influence across the entire spectrum of policy, than his brother.
So blatant was it, in fact, that in 1967 Congress passed a law barring any president from naming a relative to the Cabinet or to the helm of any federal agency. (That also applies to posts in the District of Columbia government, in case Trump was thinking of annexing the city and making Tiffany its provincial governor.) This is why Jared can't actually have the jobs of all the Cabinet secretaries he's displacing.


But let's be real: Drawing a line from RFK to Jared Kushner is like trying to compare B.B. King to Drake. By the time he became attorney general at 35, Kennedy — again, with some assistance from his father — had already achieved notoriety as the unflinching lead counsel for a mob-busting Senate committee. He'd been a government prosecutor for a decade.
Kushner hadn't served a day on a school board before Trump put him in charge of, you know, America. Near as I can tell, his sole achievement in his young life — much like his wife's — is to have spent his parents' money on cool stuff, like some buildings and a once trendy newspaper you've never read. (Kushner does have one thing in common with Bobby Kennedy: His father gave a ton of money to Harvard before he attended.)
The Trump family exhibits little defensiveness about Jared. "Nepotism is a kind of factor of life," the sage philosopher Eric Trump told Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/04/eric-trump-offers-surprisingly-candid-thoughts-on-nepotism-ivanka-jared-kushner-role-donald-white-house/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/) for a story this week. Which is certainly true if your life begins with the name "Eric Trump," but probably less so if you're one of those voters who want America made great again because your children will not inherit an empire of golf resorts.
And in an interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-interview-full-transcript/) with CBS this week, Ivanka noted that a lot of these same critics said her father didn't have the qualifications to run for president, and here he is, which I guess was supposed to be a good thing. "Jared is incredibly smart, very talented, has enormous capacity," she said.
Well, OK. But first of all, whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, and I'm a skeptic, let's acknowledge that he did harness the courage to actually run for office and the skills necessary to win. He's accountable to the voters who put him here and to a lot of Americans who did not.
Jared and Ivanka are accountable to exactly no one. Unlike a Robert Kennedy, neither of them even had to be confirmed by the Senate before wielding unparalleled power in the West Wing. No one got to vote on their empty résumés.
As for how smart Kushner is, I've never met him, and I've no reason to doubt he's a quick study and a sharp conversationalist. But, you know, you can't walk down a street on the Upper East Side without bumping into three smart guys with real estate fortunes. It's not as if he represents some rare commodity in public life.


Then there are the ethical quandaries around money, which truly are unprecedented in the executive branch. Ivanka first tried to avoid being subject to any conflict-of-interest rules at all by serving as an informal adviser. When that tactic proved even too cute for the White House legal team, she agreed to take a title as assistant to the president and to remove herself, ostensibly, from the management of her businesses — but not from the profits.
She's still making money off the Trump hotel in Washington, where you can bet a lot of foreign officials will be plunking down cash in the months ahead.
Kushner's already come under scrutiny (http://time.com/4700612/jared-kushner-anbang-deal/) because of a deal in which an influential Chinese company offered to invest $400 million in a building owned by his family. The Kushners backed off that one, but it's clear enough now that the only thing keeping Jared from mixing our business with his is the threat of public scrutiny.
And this gets to the heart of my issue with Kushner and Ivanka, and with the Trump family acquisition of the White House generally. Basically, they've decided all of a sudden that they'd very much like to run the country for a spell, but they're not willing to sacrifice a damn thing for the privilege.
Robert Kennedy could probably have doubled his fortune had he wanted to stay outside of government and profit from his brother's name. That was never the idea.
Whether you loved the power-thirsty Kennedys or hated them, whether you agreed with their vision for the country or not, no one could reasonably argue that they didn't choose to serve our interests over their own. The same was true for the Bushes, by the way.
Not so with the Trumps, from Donald on down. Public service is a playground to them, an accidental hobby. (Though apparently not as important a hobby as skiing, which is what Jared and Ivanka were doing while the health care bill was cratering (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-fails-at-the-art-of-the-political-deal-090015929.html).)
The idea that they should lose anything in order to govern, that doing this with integrity should cost them any real wealth or opportunity, seems as foreign and misguided to them as a North Korean haircut.


I'd be willing to give Jared and Ivanka the benefit of the doubt — even absent any obvious humility or aptitude for their jobs — if they were willing to entirely divest themselves from competing interests, as Cabinet secretaries do. They won't, because it's not their way to sacrifice for any greater good, and because they have an evident disdain for those who devote their lives to bettering the country.
To the Trump-Kushner axis, those people are just suckers who don't have what it takes to get rich, or at least to be born that way.
The privileges they inherited are theirs to keep while they meddle around with policies that affect the rest of us. The honor, I guess, is all ours.

Quote

WASHINGTON – President Trump unleashed airstrikes on Syria on Thursday to punish its strongman, Bashar Assad, after a chemical attack this week that killed dozens of civilians, including children (https://www.yahoo.com/news/syrian-doctor-closest-to-attack-90-percent-chance-this-was-sarin-210501356.html). The barrage amounted to the most significant military operation ordered by Trump, a newcomer to governing who had warned, before taking office, against escalating America's involvement in the Middle East.
"Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched," Trump said in Palm Springs, Florida. "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."
The operation – the first known direct American strike on Syrian government assets since the start of the country's civil war – rained at least 50 cruise missiles from U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean on a Syrian airfield thought to be the point of origin for the chemical attack, US officials said. The attack took place at 8:40 p.m. Eastern time.
The decision risked confrontation with Russia, Syria's patron, which reportedly had troops stationed at the airbase, and could mean increased dangers for hundreds of US troops now in Syria to prepare for the assault on the so-called Islamic State's capital, Raqqa. But it also sent a dramatically different message about Washington's willingness to use force in Syria after Barack Obama shied away from enforcing his self-imposed "red line."

The decision to dramatically escalate America's role in a conflict that has left some 500,000 dead, according to human rights groups, was arguably the new president's biggest decision yet, with many unknown consequences. At home, the early response from Congress suggested strong bipartisan support for the strikes, but deep concern about the way forward. Some in Congress, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, said Trump should have sought authorization from Congress for a military operation that was not in response to an attack on the U.S.
Trump explained his decision by describing the horrific images from Tuesday's chemical weapons strike in a mostly rebel-controlled area near the Turkish border, saying "there can be no dispute" that Assad's forces were responsible.
"Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians," he said. "Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack."
So "tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched," Trump said. "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."
The president also urged "all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria."
Congressional Democrats offered measured support for the onslaught, but warned that lawmakers would need to weigh on in any sustained escalation. Some of the lawmakers delivering that message stood idly by while Barack Obama escalated America's role in Iraq and Syra.
The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ben Cardin of Maryland, said in a statement that "any longer-term or larger military operation in Syria by the Trump Administration will need to be done in consultation with the Congress."
Cardin also pressed Trump "to inform the legislative branch and the American people about his larger policy in Syria, as well as the legal basis for this action and any additional military activities in that country."
Trump had huddled with top advisers including Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in Palm Beach, Fla., where he was to hold meetings Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping. In a sign of how quickly events were unfolding, White House officials had said just a day earlier that McMaster would not travel with Trump.Tillerson told reporters that the president had begun a long, difficult and potentially fruitless effort to push Assad from power.
"The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort, both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country, to avoid further civil war, and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving," he said. Pressed on whether he and Trump were working to assemble an international coalition to achieve that goal, Tillerson replied: "Those steps are underway (https://www.yahoo.com/news/tillerson-steps-way-remove-assad-power-syria-200018022.html)."
The secretary of state also had tough words for Moscow, Assad's patron. "It is very important that the Russian government consider carefully their continued support for the Assad regime," he said.
And he reaffirmed what senior U.S. officials have said since the world first saw footage and photographs of gasping, dying or dead children (https://www.yahoo.com/news/suspected-syria-gas-attack-kills-slideshow-wp-135913241.html) in Khan Sheikhoun, a locality in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib — Assad is to blame.
"There is no doubt in our minds and the information we have supports that Syria, the Syrian regime on the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad, are responsible for this attack," Tillerson said.

Quote

As White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon stepped down from the National Security Council this week (http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-news-national-security-council-2017-4), tensions between him and senior adviser Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law, burst into the open.
Several reports in recent days have detailed the brewing conflict. The Daily Beast reported (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html) Thursday that Bannon had called Kushner a "cuck" behind his back.
Bannon also told his associates, "I love a gunfight," according to  an Axios report (https://www.axios.com/steve-bannon-to-associates-i-love-a-gunfight-2347592148.html), which said that "the hatred between the two wings" in the White House was "intense and irreconcilable."
The stories of civil war (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-white-house-civil-war-236917) in the White House started rolling out in earnest this week after the White House announced Trump was  reorganizing the NSC (http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-removed-from-national-security-council-2017-4) and that Bannon would no longer be on it. In January, Trump  signed a controversial memorandum (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and) that removed some of the nation's top military and intelligence advisers as regular attendees of the NSC's principals committee and elevated Bannon.
Bannon quickly went into damage-control mode, with his allies selling the NSC demotion as a "natural evolution" rather than a sign of his waning influence,  according to The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/politics/national-security-council-stephen-bannon.html).

The Times also reported that despite his efforts to play it cool with the media, Bannon resisted his removal from the NSC and at one point threatened to quit over it. Axios reported, however, that Bannon had been telling associates that such stories were "100% nonsense."
In any case, tensions clearly are running high.
The civil war might not have started with the decision to remove Bannon from the NSC —  New York Magazine reported (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/republicans-are-tearing-each-other-to-pieces.html) that it started with the failed effort by Republicans to pass a healthcare-reform bill — but now that the narrative about Bannon has shifted to one of him losing power, the infighting has become more public.
The Daily Beast reported that fighting had been nonstop between Bannon and Kushner for weeks and that the two often clashed face-to-face. One official told the news outlet that Bannon said Kushner was trying to "shiv him and push him out the door." They said Bannon recently vented about Kushner "being a 'globalist' and a 'cuck.'"
"He actually said 'cuck,' as in 'cuckservative,'" they said.
A senior official told The Daily Beast the friction between the Bannon and Kushner camps boiled down to policy. They said there was tension "on trade, health care, immigration, taxes, [terrorism] — you name it."
Bannon is frequently described as a populist and a nationalist, and Trump embraced some of these sentiments on the campaign trail as he appealed to voters with an "America First" message. Kushner, the husband of Trump's daughter Ivanka, is seen as a more moderating force on Trump.
CNN reported (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/steve-bannon-national-security-council/) that Bannon's removal from the NSC signaled a power shift in the White House and Trump moving away "from the more hard-line ideological bent of Bannon." And sources  told Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/bannon-resign-mercer-trump-236939) that Bannon felt as though Kushner and his allies were trying to undermine his populist approach.
A person familiar with Bannon's thinking told Politico that the "big fight is between nationalists and the West Wing Democrats."
It seems that, for now, the latter wing is coming out on top. As Bannon is marginalized, Kushner's star is rising.
Kushner recently  went on a high-profile trip to Iraq (http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-jared-kushner-goes-to-iraq-2017-4) and has found allies in Gary Cohn, the National Economic Council director, and Dina Powell, the deputy national security adviser for strategy, who have become more influential.
Bannon can count Attorney General Jeff Sessions, policy adviser Stephen Miller, and presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway among his allies, according to Axios. But Trump has been known to keep his family close, and that would include Kushner.
Trump might also have political reasons to reign in Bannon. Media outlets have reported that Trump has been annoyed with the credit Bannon has received for the Trump administration's agenda, illustrated by a "Saturday Night Live" skit portraying Bannon as a puppet master.
The fighting between Bannon and Kushner has had a trickle-down effect,  according to Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-white-house-civil-war-236917).
"As we get further away from Inauguration Day, it is very obvious that no one cares what happens to the people who worked for the campaign or who have loyalty to the president," one former Trump campaign aide told Politico. "The swamp is winning the battle. And longtime campaign staffers are proving to be the first casualties."

Quote from: scallop on 07-04-2017, 09:30:52
Opet Markale.

Quote
            Kremlin officials on Monday publicly distanced themselves from a what appeared to be a threat by commanders on the ground in Syria to attack US interests if the Trump administration orders any more strikes against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
The move came in reaction to a statement published by the Assad-friendly Al-Watan newspaper and attributed to the joint command center in Syria that is shared by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah militia and other forces supporting the regime in the ongoing civil war.
Related: Team Trump Still in Search of a Coherent Syria Policy (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/04/09/Team-Trump-Still-Search-Coherent-Syria-Policy)
"The aggression against Syria oversteps all red lines," the statement said (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/assad-allies-vow-reprisals-aggression-syria-170409163714920.html). "We will react firmly to any aggression against Syria and to any infringement of red lines, whoever carries them out."
The statement was plainly a reaction to the decision by President Trump last Thursday to fire 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in retaliation for the Assad regime's apparent use of chemical weapons against the civilian population of the town of Idlib, an attack that killed dozens, including children. It also came not long after top Trump administration officials said plainly that more attacks against Syria were possible if the regime continues to target civilians.
"The strike was a message to Bashar al-Assad that your multiple violations of your agreements at the UN, your agreements under the chemical weapons charter back in 2013 that those would not go without a response in the future," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in an interview with ABC News broadcast Sunday morning.
Related: Trump Bombed Syria's Airfield. Now, Here Comes Putin's Response (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/04/07/Trump-Bombed-Syria-s-Airfield-Now-Here-Comes-Putin-s-Response)
"Our objective was to deter continued use of chemical weapons," said National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. "We're prepared to do more." However, the Russian leadership, while it condemned the US attack, quickly repudiated the statement published in Al-Watan.
"We are not aware about that; we cannot confirm that, and we do not know where Reuters got this and where these anonymous sources appeared from again," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov (https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704101052484957-russia-us-syria-red-lines/), referring to one of the news wires that reported on the statement.
Until the promise of retaliation was published, Russian officials had been very careful in their condemnation of the US attack, claiming that it violated international law, among other things, but not threatening action against the United States.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned that the missile attacks had placed the US "on the verge" of conflict with Russia in a highly critical Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/Dmitry.Medvedev/posts/10154257290791851) post.
Related: Here's What Firing 59 Tomahawk Missiles at Syria's Airfield Cost (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/04/06/Heres-What-Firing-59-Tomahawk-Missiles-Syrias-Airfield-Cost)
"The Trump administration proved that it will fiercely fight the legitimate Syrian government, in a tough contradiction with international law and without UN approval, in violation of its own procedures stipulating that the Congress must first be notified of any military operation unrelated to aggression against the US. On the verge of a military clash with Russia."
Medvedev added, "This military action is a clear indication of the US President's extreme dependency on the opinion of the Washington establishment, the one that the new president strongly criticized in his inauguration speech. Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump's election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months."
As a backdrop to this, senior US officials including UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain over the weekend all suggested that US sanctions against Russia should be tightened as a consequence for ongoing Kremlin support for the Assad regime.
The further deterioration of the relationship between Washington and Moscow comes just days before Secretary of State Tillerson is scheduled to visit Russia for high-level talks with senior officials.         

Quote from: Father Jape on 11-04-2017, 10:31:34

Znamo da je nejšonstejt star tek oko 200 godina.
Koje su to tačno onda hiljadugodišnje vrednosti?

Quote from: Father Jape on 11-04-2017, 11:19:13
Zaista 'slobodno tržište', a ne neki izvitopereni hibrid, ne bi trebalo da stvara entitete koji su 'too big to fail'.

Quote from: scallop on 11-04-2017, 11:55:28
Naravno da ne postoji. Onima koji veruju da su prisvojili "slobodno tržište", država smeta jer im je suvišni trošak.


Nemojte zaboraviti da je kultura jedna od prvih društveno političkih žrtava Globala. Koj će im kultura? Marš na slobodno tržište! Umetnička produkcija praktično ne postoji, jer ju je zamenila marketinška produkcija. Stručni komentari su zamenjeni indeksima gledanosti, fokusima i drugim metodama koji procenjuju šta i kome može da se proda. Ako ne prodaje kozmetiku, nove kredite ili automobile, zdravo i doviđenja. Da biste gledali krševe, prave od vas to isto. Sigurno nigde niste pronašli linkove da se sa neoliberalizmom transformisao i marketing. Marketing više ne traga za svojim tržištem, on ga oblikuje prema svojim potrebama.


I sad ja nekome nešto da objašnjavam i dokazujem. Dokažite vi meni da nije tako.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 11-04-2017, 06:25:11
        Russia Walks Back Threats of Retaliation If US Strikes Syria Again   (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/04/10/Russia-Walks-Back-Threats-Retaliation-If-US-Strikes-Syria-Again)

Quote from: scallop on 11-04-2017, 12:22:36
Ostaću u uverenju da se Akhnaton sa mnom složio.


Dodaću da sam zabezeknut činjenicom da se bankarski krediti i zaduživanje nude kao - proizvod. Njihova proizvodnja je zaduživanje. Takođe odrednica job je praktično nestala, pa nam se podmeće business. Pre toga su nestali pupils i svi su postali students. Bre, unuk u SAD mi je studirao obdanište! I, onda se pitamo šta se urušava.

Quote from: scallop on 11-04-2017, 12:57:51
Bem ti život kad me samo anarhista razume! Jesam li i ja anarhista?

Quote from: scallop on 11-04-2017, 13:12:43
Đe pao? Ljosno, obrali ga ko međed krušku, skinuli mu gaće...

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 11-04-2017, 20:05:43

Imal stručnjaka?

Quote from: scallop on 12-04-2017, 13:37:09
Opet sve znate. Prokljuvili ste sopstvenom enormnom pameću. Rek'o vam Linkoje. Najgore što svi na ZS znaju. Nije šteta što Bata ne pita, nego niko ne pita. A meni Alozije dao voljno, pa nikako da zaboravim.


Naravno da Trumpa nisu prevarili, ali učestvuje da još jednom vidi na delu efikasnost prevare.

Quote from: akhnaton on 12-04-2017, 13:49:14

Ili Takije.... rogonja spava u detaljima....

Quote from: scallop on 12-04-2017, 14:01:27

Quote from: akhnaton on 12-04-2017, 13:49:14

Ili Takije.... rogonja spava u detaljima....

Imam li ja to utisak da ni ti ne bi da pitaš? Ko Diogen sa sveću tražim nekog ko bi pitao. Anarhista, politkor,učen, neznalica, svejedno. Sve pametnjakovići, a bez pitanja nema odgovora.

Quote from: akhnaton on 12-04-2017, 14:21:59

Utisak vara, ja bih da se pitam, jer ko se ne pita, nikada ništa i ne sazna. Konklretno, Zašto je Denis napast bacio indijanske sekire na Sirijski aerodrom? Šta se dobija time, ko dodbija time?  Kako je došlo do toga da III svetski uđe u vreliju fazu?

Quote from: scallop on 12-04-2017, 15:52:54

Quote from: akhnaton on 12-04-2017, 14:21:59

Utisak vara, ja bih da se pitam, jer ko se ne pita, nikada ništa i ne sazna. Konklretno, Zašto je Denis napast bacio indijanske sekire na Sirijski aerodrom? Šta se dobija time, ko dodbija time?  Kako je došlo do toga da III svetski uđe u vreliju fazu?

Prvo, to je dokaz da su Trumpa odjebali. Posrali su mu se na imidž da bi hteo nešto da promeni i pokazali da se Gazda nije promenio. Saradnici su prepakovani, a on postao marioneta. Tilerson će da ponudi nedogovor. Kao, Rusi nisu pristali, a oni su 'teli.

QuoteA groundbreaking black jurist who became the first Muslim woman to serve as a U.S. judge was found dead in New York's Hudson River on Wednesday, police said.Sheila Abdus-Salaam, a 65-year-old associate judge of New York's highest court, was found floating off Manhattan's west side at about 1:45 p.m. EDT (1545 GMT), a police spokesman said.Police pulled Abdus-Salaam's fully clothed body from the water and she was pronounced dead at the scene. Her family identified her and an autopsy would determine the cause of death, the spokesman said. Abdus-Salaam, a native of Washington, D.C., became the first African-American woman appointed to the Court of Appeals when Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo named her to the state's high court in 2013."Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam was a trailblazing jurist whose life in public service was in pursuit of a more fair and more just New York for all," Cuomo said in a statement. The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History said Abdus-Salaam was the first female Muslim to serve as a U.S. judge.Citing unidentified sources, the New York Post reported that Abdus-Salaam had been reported missing from her New York home earlier on Wednesday. Attempts to reach her family were unsuccessful.


A graduate of Barnard College and Columbia Law School, Abdus-Salaam started her law career with East Brooklyn Legal Services and served as a New York state assistant attorney general, according to the Court of Appeals website.She held a series of judicial posts after being elected to a New York City judgeship in 1991.

Quote from: дејан on 13-04-2017, 11:00:07
мен'се чини да је ово материјал за америку на ивици пропастА  :lol:

Quote
Attorney General Jeff Sessions will end a Justice Department partnership with independent scientists to raise forensic science standards and has suspended an expanded review of FBI testimony across several techniques that have come under question, saying a new strategy will be set by an in-house team of law enforcement advisers.

In a statement Monday (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/justice-department-to-seek-public-comment-on-forensic-sciences/2403/), Sessions said he would not renew the National Commission on Forensic Science, a roughly 30-member advisory panel of scientists, judges, crime lab leaders, prosecutors and defense lawyers chartered by the Obama administration in 2013.

A path to meet needs of overburdened crime labs will be set by a yet-to-be-named senior forensic adviser and an internal department crime task force, Sessions's statement said.

[Read Justice Department statement on commission here] (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/justice-department-to-seek-public-comment-on-forensic-sciences/2403/)

The announcement came as the commission began its last, two-day meeting before its term ends April 23, and as some of its most far-reaching final recommendations remained hanging before the department.  Justice officials said, for example, that no decision has been made on a call for new, department-wide standards for examining and reporting forensic evidence in criminal courts across the country. But the department has decided to suspend work on setting uniform standards for forensic testimony.
[U.S. to commit scientists and new commission to fix forensic science (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-to-commit-scientists-and-new-commission-to-fix-forensic-science/2013/02/15/e11c31f8-77b3-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html?utm_term=.f27e56fd0754)]
"The availability of prompt and accurate forensic science analysis to our law enforcement officers and prosecutors is critical to integrity in law enforcement, reducing violent crime, and increasing public safety," Sessions said in the statement. "We applaud the professionalism of the National Commission on Forensic Science and look forward to building on the contributions it has made in this crucial field."
The action marked the latest break by Sessions, a former federal prosecutor, with Obama-era priorities. The former senator from Alabama last week announced that top aides will review agreements reached with troubled police forces  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-orders-justice-department-to-review-all-police-reform-agreements/2017/04/03/ba934058-18bd-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.2fdc5c26bfd9)nationwide to ensure the pacts to overhaul departments do not counter the Trump administration's goals of combating violent crime and promoting police safety and morale .
  [In executive actions, President Trump vows crackdown on violent crime (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/09/in-executive-actions-president-trump-vows-crackdown-on-violent-crime-is-america-as-unsafe-as-he-thinks/?utm_term=.1e0e90b9988a)]
Barack Obama, a constitutional law scholar, had championed changes to forensic science.
In September, a White House science panel called on courts to question the admissibility of four heavily used techniques (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/white-house-science-advisers-urge-justice-dept-judges-to-raise-forensic-standards/2016/09/19/42475c74-7d13-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.1ac48ce9fa74), including firearms tracing, saying claims about their reliabilityhad not been scientifically proved. The Justice Department last year also announced a wider review of testimony by experts  (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/sessions-orders-justice-dept-to-end-forensic-science-commission-suspend-review-policy/2017/04/10/2dada0ca-1c96-11e7-9887-1a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.f2ece169ab01)across several disciplines after finding that nearly all FBI experts for years overstated and gave scientifically misleading testimony about two techniques the FBI Laboratory long championed: the tracing of crime-scene hairs based on microscopic examinations and of bullets based on chemical composition.

The wider review has been suspended pending review by the incoming administration and a strategy to be devised by the internal task force with input through public comments, Office of Legal Policy senior counsel Kira Antell said. at the start of Monday's commission meeting in Washington.

"We plan to consider all options," Associate Deputy Attorney General Andrew D. Goldsmith said, including using a different commission, a Justice Department office or a group composed of representatives from many agencies.

In his statement about the future of forensic sciences, Sessions highlighted the need to survey crime-lab workloads, backlogs and equipment needs as a way to increase the labs' capacities to do work, and the need for reliability and "specificity" of results.

Even before the announcement not to renew the national commission, several commission members from outside the Justice Department warned against ending its work, saying the Trump administration has made several moves to reduce the role of science and independent scientists in policymaking.

[Scientists are conspicuously missing from Trump's government (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/13/one-big-thing-that-trumps-government-is-missing-scientists/?utm_term=.11bf8dfbef69)]

In a letter Thursday (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/scientists-on-national-commission-urge-panel-be-renewed-in-letter-to-attorney-general/2404/), six leading research scientists on the panel urged re-upping the commission for an additional two years, saying, "for too long, decisions regarding forensic science have been made without the input of the research science community."

"Limiting the 'relevant scientific community' to forensic practitioners is a disservice to that field and to the criminal justice system," they wrote, led by Thomas D. Albright, an internationally recognized neuroscientist specializing in vision and the brain at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies.

[Read letter from scientists here] (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/scientists-on-national-commission-urge-panel-be-renewed-in-letter-to-attorney-general/2404/)

The commission jointly led by Justice and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has prompted several changes.

Following one recommendation, NIST launched a $20 million research effort to solidify understanding of whether techniques used more than 100,000 times a year in U.S. crime labs work as advertised — starting with the question of how often claimed matches of pattern-based evidence such as complex DNA profile mixtures may be in error, followed by studies of firearms and bite-mark tracing.

Sessions's predecessor as attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch, also accepted commission recommendations to set new accrediting and ethical codes for forensic labs and practitioners.

[Justice Department issues first standards for forensic expert testimony (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/justice-department-issues-first-standards-for-forensic-science-expert-testimony/2016/06/03/04ab129a-29c4-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html?utm_term=.6b31a1548ca5)]

Several commission members who have worked in criminal courts and supported the input of independent scientists said the department risks retreating into insularity and repeating past mistakes, saying that no matter how well-intentioned, prosecutors lack scientists' objectivity and training.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of New York, the only federal judge on the commission, said, "It is unrealistic to expect that truly objective, scientifically sound standards for the use of forensic science . . . can be arrived at by entities centered solely within the Department of Justice."

In suspending reviews of past testimony and the development of standards for future reporting, "the department has literally decided to suspend the search for the truth," said Peter S. Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, which has reported that nearly half of 349 DNA exonerations involved misapplications of forensic science. "As a consequence innocent people will languish in prison or, God forbid, could be executed," he said.



However, the National District Attorneys Association, which represents prosecutors, applauded the end of the commission and called for it to be replaced by an Office of Forensic Science inside the Justice Department. Disagreements between crime lab practitioners and defense community representatives on the commission had reduced it to "a think tank," yielding few accomplishments and wasted tax dollars, the association said.

The commission was created after critical reports by the National Academy of Sciences about a dearth of standards and funding for crime labs, examiners and researchers, problems it partly traced to law enforcement control over the system.

Although examiners had long claimed to be able to match pattern evidence — such as with firearms or bite marks — to a source with "absolute" or "scientific" certainty, only DNA analysis had been validated through statistical research, scientists reported.

In one case, the FBI lab in 2005 abandoned its four-decade-long practice of tracing bullets to a specific manufacturer's batch through chemical analyses after its method were scientifically debunked. In 2015, the department and bureau reported that nearly every examiner in an elite hair-analysis unit gave scientifically flawed or overstated testimony in 90 percent of cases for two decades before 2000.

The cases include 32 defendants sentenced to death. Of those, 14 have been executed or died in prison.

Separately on Monday, the national commission heard from Keith Harward, an ex-Navy sailor exonerated last year after serving 33 years of a life sentence for rape and murder in Newport News, Va. Harward was convicted after six experts, including a leader in the field, concurred that bite marks on a victim matched his teeth to a "medical certainty." DNA testing identified a different sailor as the perpetrator. No court in the United States has barred bite-mark evidence, despite 21 known wrongful convictions, a proposed moratorium in Texas and research showing that experts cannot consistently agree even on whether injuries are caused by human teeth.

[Va. exoneration underscores mounting challenges to bite-mark evidence (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/va-exoneration-underscores-to-mounting-challenges-to-bite-mark-evidence/2016/04/08/55bbfe98-fd9a-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.f64d04688aba)]

The Justice Department and commission's moves have had impact.

FBI Director James B. Comey last year asked U.S. governors to have state and local crime labs review their hair-comparison cases, and reviews of past convictions are underway in at least a dozen states, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

"We want to make sure there aren't other innocent people in jail based on our work," Comey wrote in a June letter. "Unfortunately, in a large number of cases, our examiners made statements that went too far in explaining the significance of a hair comparison and could have misled a jury or judge."

In backing the expanded Justice Department testimony review, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said in February 2016 that its goal was to determine whether "the same kind of 'testimonial overstatement' . . . could have crept into other disciplines."

"The authority afforded to scientific experts is second to none, and we must make sure that our statements are clearly supported by sound science," Yates said.

In another example, the Defense Forensic Science Center, formerly called the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory, has funded new research establishing error rates for firearms tracking and last month announced it would begin reporting fingerprint results using statistical probabilities instead of declaring one-to-one matches to individuals, a departure from FBI practice.

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 13-04-2017, 23:58:03
Tekst o kubanskoj raketnoj krizi 1962. godine, gdje i Ameri napokon priznaju prave razloge nastanka kriza, ruše mit o Kenediju uz maestralan zaključak kako je Kenedi uticao na buduću američku politiku

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 15-04-2017, 21:04:21
Trampu sipali nešto u drogu!

Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly fired FBI Director James Comey Tuesday, dramatically ousting the nation's top law enforcement official in the midst of an FBI investigation into whether Trump's campaign had ties to Russia's meddling in the election that sent him to the White House.
In a letter to Comey, Trump said the firing was necessary to restore "public trust and confidence" in the FBI. Comey has come under intense scrutiny in recent months for his public comments on an investigation into Democrat Hillary Clinton's email practices, including a pair of letters he sent to Congress on the matter in the closing days of last year's campaign.
Trump made no mention of Comey's role in the Clinton investigation, which she has blamed in part for the election result. But in announcing the firing, the White House circulated a scathing memo, written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, criticizing Comey's handling of the Clinton probe, including the director's decision to hold a news conference announcing its findings and releasing "derogatory information" about Clinton.
Since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the bureau's Trump-Russia probe, Rosenstein has been in charge.
This is only the second firing of an FBI director in history. President Bill Clinton dismissed William Sessions amid allegations of ethical lapses in 1993.
Comey, who was in Los Angeles to speak at an FBI recruiting event, boarded his plane and headed back to Washington instead.
Democrats slammed Trump's action, comparing it to President Richard Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" decision to fire the independent special prosecutor overseeing the Watergate investigation in 1973, which prompted the resignations of the Justice Department's top two officials.
"This is Nixonian," Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., declared on Twitter. "Outrageous," said Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, calling for Comey to immediately be summoned to testify to Congress about the status of the Trump-Russia investigation. Rep. Adam Schiff of California, top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the White House was "brazenly interfering" in the probe.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Congress must form a special committee to investigate Russia's interference in the election.
Democrats expressed deep skepticism about the stated reasons for Tuesday's firing, raising the prospect of a White House effort to stymie the investigations by the FBI and congressional panels.
Trump will now appoint Comey's successor. The White House said the search for a replacement was beginning immediately. Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe, takes over in the interim.
Trump has ridiculed the investigations as a "hoax" and has denied that his campaign was involved in Russia's meddling. In his letter to Comey, he asserted that the FBI director had informed him "on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation."
Tuesday's stunning announcement came shortly after the FBI corrected aspects of Comey's sworn testimony on Capitol Hill last week. Comey told lawmakers that Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, had sent "hundreds and thousands" of emails to her husband's laptop, including some with classified information.
On Tuesday, the FBI told the Senate Judiciary Committee that only "a small number" of the thousands of emails found on the laptop had been forwarded there while most had simply been backed up from electronic devices. Most of the email chains on the laptop containing classified information were not the result of forwarding, the FBI said.
Some lawmakers did welcome news of the dismissal.
"Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well," said Republican Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, chairman of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee investigating the Russian campaign interference.
Comey, 56, was nominated by President Barack Obama for the FBI post in 2013 to a 10-year term, though that appointment does not ensure a director will serve the full term.
Praised frequently by both parties for his independence and integrity, Comey has spent three decades in law enforcement.
But his prominent role in the 2016 presidential campaign raised questions about his judgment and impartiality. Though the FBI did not recommend charges against Clinton for mishandling classified information, Comey was blisteringly critical of her decision to use a personal email account and private internet server during her four years as secretary of state.Comey strongly defended his decisions during the hearing last week. He said he was "mildly nauseous" at the thought of having swayed the election but also said he would do the same again.
Clinton has partially blamed her loss on Comey's disclosure to Congress less than two weeks before Election Day that the email investigation would be revisited. Comey later said the FBI, again, had found no reason to bring any charges.
Trump disagreed with Clinton's assessment, tweeting that Comey actually "was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!"
Clinton's advisers were stunned by Trump's decision Tuesday. Former campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said that while he believed Comey had "inflicted severe damage" on the FBI, "the timing and manner of this firing suggest that it is the product of Donald Trump feeling the heat on the ongoing Russia investigation and not a well thought out response to the inappropriate handling of the Clinton investigation."
Though Comey was well-liked within the bureau, his independent streak occasionally rankled the Obama administration, including his repeated contention that a spike in violent crime might be linked to police officer anxiety over public scrutiny.
Before the past months' controversies, Comey, a former deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, was perhaps best known for a remarkable 2004 standoff with top officials over a federal domestic surveillance program.
In March of that year, Comey rushed to the hospital bed of Attorney General John Ashcroft to physically stop White House officials in their bid to get his ailing boss to reauthorize a secret no-warrant wiretapping program.
Comey described the incident in 2007 testimony to Congress, explaining that he believed the spy program put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks was legally questionable.
When he learned that Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel, were heading to Ashcroft's hospital room despite Ashcroft's wife's instructions that there be no visitors, Comey told Congress, Comey beat them there and watched as Ashcroft turned them away.
"That night was probably the most difficult night of my professional life," Comey said.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 10-05-2017, 10:12:54
Prigodna ilustracija:


(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F29xamhf.jpg&hash=aa7d210558c577badc9fff249c3fbbc58c811e6e)

Quote
President Donald Trump is by no means popular—compared with his predecessors (http://www.newsweek.com/least-popular-president-donald-trump-approval-rating-average-falls-610440), his approval rating has been remarkably low during his time in the White House. But there's some small solace for the president this week: His approval rating is, at least for the moment, a hair better then where President Bill Clinton stood at the same point in his first term.
Different polling outfits put Trump at varying levels of approval, but the RealClearPolitics average (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html) had him at 39.8 percent Tuesday, while the weighted average from FiveThirtyEight (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/) had him at exactly 39 percent. Not great numbers, but still better than Clinton. On Day 138 of his presidency, just 37.8 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing, according to FiveThirtyEight.
If you compare where each president stood at this point in the Gallup tracking poll, however, the two are deadlocked. The most recent Gallup survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx) pegged Trump's approval at 37 percent, the exact same figure (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx) the polling company found for Clinton in early June 1993. Trump's disapproval rating in the survey was far higher, however, outpacing Clinton at 57 percent to 49 percent.
Trending: Tensions Between Rival Gangs Erupt in Deadly Prison Riot in Mexico State Bordering the U.S. (http://www.newsweek.com/tensions-between-rival-gangs-erupt-deadly-prison-riot-mexico-state-bordering-622010)
A number of factors were blamed for Clinton's low approval at the time. The economy wasn't exactly humming along. There were the beginnings of an ethics controversy (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-scandals) over the White House travel office. Clinton also allowed (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/20/news/20iht-gay_1.html) gay people to serve in the military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that angered people, both for allowing gay people to serve and for not treating gay people equally.
"I never expected that I could take on some of these interests that I've taken on without being attacked," Clinton said (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/15/us/excerpts-from-clinton-s-news-conference-in-the-rose-garden.html?pagewanted=3) about the approval polls at the time. "And whenever you try to change things, there are always people there ready to point out the pain of change without the promise of it, and that's just all part of it. If I worried about the poll ratings, I'd never get anything done here."
Clinton's numbers soon turned around, and by the end of June, Gallup had him (http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx) in the mid-40s. By the time he left office, 66 percent of the country approved of him.
Don't miss: Australian Airline Bans Qatar Nationals From Flying to Dubai (http://www.newsweek.com/qatar-crisis-qantas-flights-dubai-622003)
Trump, meanwhile, has seen his approval rating decline steadily since he moved into the White House. The FBI investigation into his campaign's possible ties to Russia—which, the U.S. intelligence community says, worked to get Trump elected—certainly hasn't helped the president's popularity.
A major event involving that controversy is scheduled for Thursday, when former FBI Directory James Comey—whom Trump fired—is expected to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Comey will almost certainly address a conversation with Trump during which the president reportedly urged him to end the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Polls, meanwhile, have shown (http://%e2%80%94) that voters are concerned about the Russia investigation—and how Trump has handled it. Meaning that it seems likely the president could trail Clinton again soon.

QuoteWhite House Press Secretary Sean Spicer will step back from giving reporters the daily press briefing and is searching for his replacement at the podium.
   "We have sought input from many people as we look to expand our communications operation. As he did in the beginning, Sean Spicer is managing both the communications and press office," White House officials said in a statement Monday.

Spicer will continue to fill the duties of the communications director – a post that has been empty since the end of May after the resignation of Mike Dubke (https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-05-30/mike-dubke-white-house-communications-director-has-resigned).
   There has been plenty of speculation about Spicer's job almost since the first day of the Trump administration, when he came before members of the media to defend the new president's claims about crowd sizes at his inauguration. The chatter has ramped up in recent weeks, as he gave over many of his briefing duties to his deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
   The White House has reportedly not yet settled on a title for Spicer's new role, which is part of a broader shakeup meant to wipe the slate clean after a series of communications missteps.
   According to Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/19/sean-spicer-replacement-press-secretary-239721), Spicer and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus are interviewing candidates for the press secretary role. Among the candidates are said to be Laura Ingraham, the Fox News personality and a potential candidate to challenge Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/17/laura-ingraham-considering-senate-run-virginia-challenging-tim-kaine), and David Martosko, the editor of the Daily Mail, who met with senior White House strategist Steve Bannon last week.
   Sanders has reportedly told people she does not want the job.
   Kimberly Guilfoyle, a co-host of Fox News' "The Five," last month said (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-05-16/fox-news-kimberly-guilfoyle-says-she-may-be-white-house-press-secretary) she had conversations with the Trump administration about taking over the role, but apparently has not been formally interviewed.
     

Last week was told DJT called Ingraham but was iffy on the podium. Guilfoyle said no. Jared likes Martosko. Trump ❤️ Miller as comms

https://t.co/mm8umfd556 (https://t.co/mm8umfd556)
— Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) June 19, 2017 (https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/876906667279077376)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 31-07-2017, 06:38:41
Trampova vladavina se nastavlja poput nekog impresivnog lančanog sudara na usporenom snimku. Tax Policy Center je analizirao njegovu poresku politiku i, o iznenađenja, utvrdio da će za veliki broj domaćinstava u srednjoj kategoriji (onih koja zarađuju između 149.400 i 307.900 dolata gofišnje) porez porasti za 3,3 odsto godišnje, dok će za one koji zarađuju najmanje ali, naravno, i za one koji zarađuju najviše, poresko opterećenje ostati uglavnom isto. Analiza je ovde: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/implications-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-president-trumps-tax-plan/full (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/implications-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-president-trumps-tax-plan/full)

S druge strane, postavljanje Antonija Skaramučija na čelo tima za komunikaciju Bele kuće se pokazalo skoro kao zaplet nekog Skorcezeovog filma. Sve što može da krene naopako, krenulo je naopako. Plus, reklo bi se, kokain, velike količine (ipak je to čovek koji je, kažu, platio 100K dolara da se pojavi u Wall Street 2 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/how-anthony-scaramucci-made-it-into-wall-street-2and-donald-trump-got-cut?via=twitter_page)).  Skaramučija je žena promptno ostavila i odmah se porodila, što je on propratio adekvatnom SMS porukom (http://thegrapevine.theroot.com/the-mooch-is-officially-a-douche-he-texted-his-wife-af-1797375476), a onda je on zvao novinara Njujorkera, da ga, sav besan pita u vezi izvora informacija koje je list koristio u nedavnom izveštavanju vezanom za Belu kuću i ... pa, vredi da ovo pročitate sami (http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon). Dok budete brojali koliko se puta "kurac" i "jebanje" ponavljaju u njegovoj tiradi u kojoj preti da će da otpusti sve zaposlene pa onda ništa ne vredi što novinar štiti svoj izvor, pomislite da je ovo Direktor za Komunikacije u, teoretski, najmoćnijoj državnoj instituciji na svetu. Čovek je posle, nakon što je novinar sve uredno objavio, tvitovao da je "pogrešio što je verovao reporteru i da se to neće ponoviti (https://twitter.com/scaramucci/status/890736308498378753)". Kako mu i jedan od odgovora na tvit ukazuje, skoro kao da se može reći da Skaramuči nema nikakvog iskustva sa ovim i da nema pojma šta radi...

Quote
,,Donald Tramp je 1987. godine kupio svoje prve kamate kazina, kada je sakupio 93% deonica Resort International-a. Resort International ima prljavu prošlost koja počinje ranih pedesetih godina prošlog veka kada se razvija iz paravanske kompanje CIA-e i Mosada, koja je osnovana kako bi se oprao novac od prodaje narkotika, kockanja i ostalih ilegalnih aktivnosti. Novine The Spotlight su 30. oktobra 1979. godine objavile da su glavni investitori Resort International-a Majer Lanski, Tibor Rozenbaum, Vilijam Meloun Hičkok, Dejvid Rokfeler i baron Edmund de Rotšild."

Nakon smrti dugogodišnjeg direktora CIA-e, Džejmsa Krozbija, glavnog u Resort International-u, 1987. godine, mladi prespektivni trgovac nekretnina iz Njujorka, Donald Tramp, stupio je na scenu i otkupio Krozbijeve kamate kockarske imperije.

,,Tramp je uskoro postalo prepoznatljivo ime, sa svojom osobenom ličnošću i insistiranja na tome da nekoliko luksuznih hotela, zgrada i ostalih poslovnih poduhvata nazove svojim imenom. Ali dok se na naslovnim stranama pojavljivalo ime ,,Tramp",imena pravih vlasnika Resort International-a, Rokfelera i Rotšilda, ostali su skriveni od pogleda javnosti."

Nakon što je brzo proširio bogatsvo Resort International-a na Atlantik Siti, poslednjih godina 1980-te, Donald Tramp se našao u finansijskoj krizi kada je tržište nekretnina u Njujorku počelo da propada. Tri kazina u Atlantik sitiju, kao i druga Trampova imovina, bila su pod pretnjom oduzimanja od strane kreditora. Samo uz pomoć i uveravanje Vilbura L. Rosa mlađeg, višeg direktora Rotshcild Inc, Trampu je dozvoljeno da zadrži kazina i ponovo izgradi ugroženu imperiju."

Ovo je detaljnije opisano u članku Blumberga napisanog 22. marta 1992. godine.

Vilbur L Ros, koji je i dalje desna ruka Džejkoba Rotšilda, podržao je Trampovu nominaciju za predsednika u maju 2016. godine.

Sin Džejkoba Rotšilda, Nat je čak bio u vezi sa Ivankom Tramp.

Quote from: T2 on 01-08-2017, 22:28:26
Кад год наши медији у избор неког председника уплету Тарабиће - одмах је јасно да је у питању и превара и подвала.
Сетимо се Коштуњавог и досмалијских летака пласираних пред изборе 2000. године.
Овај покривљени Трамп је само користан идиот који много тога дугује својим газдама.

Quote
,,Donald Tramp je 1987. godine kupio svoje prve kamate kazina, kada je sakupio 93% deonica Resort International-a. Resort International ima prljavu prošlost koja počinje ranih pedesetih godina prošlog veka kada se razvija iz paravanske kompanje CIA-e i Mosada, koja je osnovana kako bi se oprao novac od prodaje narkotika, kockanja i ostalih ilegalnih aktivnosti. Novine The Spotlight su 30. oktobra 1979. godine objavile da su glavni investitori Resort International-a Majer Lanski, Tibor Rozenbaum, Vilijam Meloun Hičkok, Dejvid Rokfeler i baron Edmund de Rotšild."

Nakon smrti dugogodišnjeg direktora CIA-e, Džejmsa Krozbija, glavnog u Resort International-u, 1987. godine, mladi prespektivni trgovac nekretnina iz Njujorka, Donald Tramp, stupio je na scenu i otkupio Krozbijeve kamate kockarske imperije.

,,Tramp je uskoro postalo prepoznatljivo ime, sa svojom osobenom ličnošću i insistiranja na tome da nekoliko luksuznih hotela, zgrada i ostalih poslovnih poduhvata nazove svojim imenom. Ali dok se na naslovnim stranama pojavljivalo ime ,,Tramp",imena pravih vlasnika Resort International-a, Rokfelera i Rotšilda, ostali su skriveni od pogleda javnosti."

Nakon što je brzo proširio bogatsvo Resort International-a na Atlantik Siti, poslednjih godina 1980-te, Donald Tramp se našao u finansijskoj krizi kada je tržište nekretnina u Njujorku počelo da propada. Tri kazina u Atlantik sitiju, kao i druga Trampova imovina, bila su pod pretnjom oduzimanja od strane kreditora. Samo uz pomoć i uveravanje Vilbura L. Rosa mlađeg, višeg direktora Rotshcild Inc, Trampu je dozvoljeno da zadrži kazina i ponovo izgradi ugroženu imperiju."

Ovo je detaljnije opisano u članku Blumberga napisanog 22. marta 1992. godine.

Vilbur L Ros, koji je i dalje desna ruka Džejkoba Rotšilda, podržao je Trampovu nominaciju za predsednika u maju 2016. godine.

Sin Džejkoba Rotšilda, Nat je čak bio u vezi sa Ivankom Tramp.

Quote from: T2 on 03-08-2017, 14:07:28
Трамп је још један терориста који се нашао на месту председника Америке.
Пре него је постао председедник - баљезгао је "упаднемо у Сирију и отмемо нафту"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTT9-I4FQG0

Тероризам је потврдио наредбом о лансирању крстарећих ракета на аеродром сиријске војске.

Након свега, амерички терориста у друштву џихадисте и спонзора исламистичког тероризма у наводном антитерористичком центру мази некакву кристалну куглу, ко баба Роска и њен Гриша...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0U1MG6hm2o

За то време се обичном народу мажу очи причом како његова Миланка није носила фереџу у Ријаду.

Quote
Trump osudio medije zbog jednostranog i netočnog izvještavanja o neredima u Charlottesvilleu

Predsjednik Trump osudio je mainstream i ljevičarske medije zbog netočnog izvještavanja i prikrivanja činjenica o događajima koji su se odvijali uoči i prilikom eskalacije nasilja na prosvjedu u Charlottesvilleu.

Na tiskovnoj konferenciji pri dolasku u New York, novinare je zanimalo zašto prilikom prvog obraćanja javnosti Trump nije decidirano osudio ,,neonaciste" prisutne u Charlottesvilleu.

,,Nije bilo realne mogućnosti dati točnu izjavu u tom trenutku, za razliku od vas i ostatka medija prije nego ja dam izjavu, volim znati činjenice", odgovorio je Trump.

Trump je pritom naglasio da vjeruje da je krivice bilo na obje strane, te da su mediji iznijeli jednostranu priču o cijelom događaju.

,,Pogledajte obje strane, vjerujem da obje strane snose krivnju za događaje. Nimalo ne sumnjam u to, a ne sumnjate ni vi, a da ste točno izvještavali, i sami biste to rekli."

Trump, koji je u nekoliko navrata osudio nacističke i rasističke elemente među takozvanim alt-right prosvjednicima, osudio je ponašanje i ljevičarskih skupina koje su napale prosvjednike.

,,Zar oni nemaju nimalo krivnje? Što je s činjenicom da su došli i napali ljude palicama? To nije njihov problem? Ja mislim da jest."

,,Među obje skupine smatram da je bilo loših pojedinaca, kao i to da je bilo normalnih, kvalitetnih osoba, i nisu svi koji su došli prosvjedovati u Charlottesville bili nacisti i bijeli supremacisti, većina su bili ljudi koji su zabrinuti zbog uklanjanja povijesnih spomenika i preimenovanja tamošnjeg parka."

http://tribun.hr/trump-osudio-medije-zbog-jednostranog-netocnog-izvjestavanja-neredima-charlottesvilleu/

Quote
He also criticised "alt-left" groups that he claimed were "very, very violent" when they sought to confront the nationalist and Nazi groups, again saying there is "blame on both sides" and that "there are two sides to the story."

"Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E Lee," Mr Trump said. "This week, it is Robert E Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?" he said, later noting that both the first and third American presidents had owned slaves.

"George Washington was a slave owner. Are we gonna take down statues of George Washington? ... you're changing history, you're changing culture...

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 18-08-2017, 06:03:00
Da vidimo šta kažu spekulacije:
Trump Is Just Six Senate Votes Away From Impeachment (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-just-six-senate-votes-130457745.html)

i

Trump Is Going to Resign Soon, President's 'Art of the Deal' Writer Predicts (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-going-resign-soon-president-144243350.html)

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 19-08-2017, 12:06:39
Neki bi rekli i da su Rusi uticali na izbore, simulakrumi rulaju. Al Saks ne može da se slaže s antiglobalistom, kao što ni Čomski ne može da spominje Smita, tako da...  Simulakrumi rulaju.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 19-08-2017, 17:12:08

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 19-08-2017, 12:06:39
Neki bi rekli i da su Rusi uticali na izbore, simulakrumi rulaju. Al Saks ne može da se slaže s antiglobalistom, kao što ni Čomski ne može da spominje Smita, tako da...  Simulakrumi rulaju.

Ali Benon je actually bivši egzekjutiv Goldman Saksa, tako da, ima tu neke vragolije.

Quote from: Pizzobatto on 19-08-2017, 18:11:03
ako tako tumačimo ti ćeš biti strani plaćenik i poslije smrti!!! 8-)

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-09-2017, 13:19:29
Zgodan sažetak najnovije tramptastične kontroverze vezane za klečanje NFL igrača na terenu za vreme izvođenja himne u znak protesta protiv nasilja nad manjinama,

Quote
She's an advocate for herself who uses racism to gain free money out of people. I guess I can't blame her. I'm an advocate for myself too, but I'm not out there begging for donations.

Quote
Colin Kaepernick, then with the San Francisco 49ers, kneeled in an attempt to provoke debate (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/24/colin-kaepernick-conversation-donald-trump-anthem-kneel) over race and police brutality. 

Quote
"We have this narrative that these protests are contradictory to our flag and contradictory to our military. I don't see them that way. I see them as complementary to the ideals to the flag, to the military and what they fought for.
"I have not heard one player that has not been more than grateful to our military. This isn't about that at all. It's about standing up for the ideals of the flag."

Quote

"Me taking a knee doesn't change the fact that I support our military, I'm a patriot and I love my country," Bills linebacker Lorenzo Alexander said. "But I also recognize there are some social injustices in this country and today I wanted to take a knee in support of my brothers who have been doing it."
Alexander said he'll go back to standing for the anthem next week.
"I just wanted to show them that I was with them today, especially in the backdrop of our president making the comments about our players, about their mothers," Alexander said. "And then you put that in conjunction with how he tried to gray-area Nazism and KKK members as being fine people, I had to take a knee."

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-09-2017, 20:06:11
I na koji način Chanelle Helm reprezentuje čitavu manjinu ili čak onaj njen aktivistički deo? Na vrlo zanemarljiv.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-09-2017, 20:06:11
A ovo drugo, evo, čitaj:

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-09-2017, 20:33:21
A, da, Hrvati su o Srbima uvek izveštavali odmereno, izbalansirano i fer. Jasni su tvoji kriterijumi.

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 25-09-2017, 20:33:21I, vidi, to što Chanelle sebe predstavlja na taj način na sajtu koji je praktično blog jednog čoveka, to ne znači bogznašta.

Quote from: akhnaton on 26-09-2017, 09:32:01
Ovo je valjda trebao da bude topic o najbudalastijem predsedniku SAD, a ne o tome šta žele oni koje su u svojoj naivnosti oslobodili Linkoln, Kenedi i Džonson. Dajući slobodu, onu su uz normalne oslobodili i ludake, koje je identitetska politika japi "levičara" napravila večitim žrtvama. Nekada ponosni što mogu da pevaju himnu svoje države, sada se bekelje i pljuju po njoj, jer država ne tetoši i povlađuje! Pa zbog tetošenja i silovanja jezika su naivci i  glasali za Denisa, ne zbog toga što je on bolji izbor od feminaci H.B.C.
U prethodnih 37 godina im je uništeno obrazovanje, deca se zaluđuju video igricama ili se obrazju na gender studijama, lakše je dobiti seks od azijatkinja, transi, ili homoseksualaca nego od belih žena koje bi najradije sa "crnim" tetoviranim alfama, uz zadržavanje belog provajdera. Naravno to sve ako pre toga ne popiju zatvorsku kaznu jer su nekoj rekli da je seksi, a ona to shvatila kao uznemiravanje. Uništen im je ponos, fabrike preseljene u zemlje sa kojima su ratovali što vrelo, što hladno. Žive dvoličnim životima, ovamo su opsednuti fizičkim izgledom, a sa druge strane su svi deformisano debeli. I onda kako da ne glasaju za četvrtog člana odbora kompanije Trotter Independent Trading Systems?
A ova obesse black feminaci je tek posebna priča.

Quote from: Аксентије Новаковић on 26-09-2017, 14:50:36

Quote from: akhnaton on 26-09-2017, 09:32:01
Ovo je valjda trebao da bude topic o najbudalastijem predsedniku SAD, a ne o tome šta žele oni koje su u svojoj naivnosti oslobodili Linkoln, Kenedi i Džonson. Dajući slobodu, onu su uz normalne oslobodili i ludake, koje je identitetska politika japi "levičara" napravila večitim žrtvama. Nekada ponosni što mogu da pevaju himnu svoje države, sada se bekelje i pljuju po njoj, jer država ne tetoši i povlađuje! Pa zbog tetošenja i silovanja jezika su naivci i  glasali za Denisa, ne zbog toga što je on bolji izbor od feminaci H.B.C.
U prethodnih 37 godina im je uništeno obrazovanje, deca se zaluđuju video igricama ili se obrazju na gender studijama, lakše je dobiti seks od azijatkinja, transi, ili homoseksualaca nego od belih žena koje bi najradije sa "crnim" tetoviranim alfama, uz zadržavanje belog provajdera. Naravno to sve ako pre toga ne popiju zatvorsku kaznu jer su nekoj rekli da je seksi, a ona to shvatila kao uznemiravanje. Uništen im je ponos, fabrike preseljene u zemlje sa kojima su ratovali što vrelo, što hladno. Žive dvoličnim životima, ovamo su opsednuti fizičkim izgledom, a sa druge strane su svi deformisano debeli. I onda kako da ne glasaju za četvrtog člana odbora kompanije Trotter Independent Trading Systems?
A ova obesse black feminaci je tek posebna priča.

Кад кренеш да повлађујеш незајажљивима, и даш им прст - увек останеш без шаке, а затим и без целе руке.
Негроиди ће тражити промену химне, прилагођавање заставе и химне њима итдитд.
Једном су имали председника - тражиће стално, јер јасно је да сматрају да као мањина треба да имају све фрај, што подсећа на једну нашу мањину (ми смо гани, ми смо угрожени, дајте нам, дајте, дајте, ако не дате ви Срби сте расисти итдитд).

Quote from: akhnaton on 26-09-2017, 15:01:43

Quote from: Аксентије Новаковић on 26-09-2017, 14:50:36

Quote from: akhnaton on 26-09-2017, 09:32:01
Ovo je valjda trebao da bude topic o najbudalastijem predsedniku SAD, a ne o tome šta žele oni koje su u svojoj naivnosti oslobodili Linkoln, Kenedi i Džonson. Dajući slobodu, onu su uz normalne oslobodili i ludake, koje je identitetska politika japi "levičara" napravila večitim žrtvama. Nekada ponosni što mogu da pevaju himnu svoje države, sada se bekelje i pljuju po njoj, jer država ne tetoši i povlađuje! Pa zbog tetošenja i silovanja jezika su naivci i  glasali za Denisa, ne zbog toga što je on bolji izbor od feminaci H.B.C.
U prethodnih 37 godina im je uništeno obrazovanje, deca se zaluđuju video igricama ili se obrazju na gender studijama, lakše je dobiti seks od azijatkinja, transi, ili homoseksualaca nego od belih žena koje bi najradije sa "crnim" tetoviranim alfama, uz zadržavanje belog provajdera. Naravno to sve ako pre toga ne popiju zatvorsku kaznu jer su nekoj rekli da je seksi, a ona to shvatila kao uznemiravanje. Uništen im je ponos, fabrike preseljene u zemlje sa kojima su ratovali što vrelo, što hladno. Žive dvoličnim životima, ovamo su opsednuti fizičkim izgledom, a sa druge strane su svi deformisano debeli. I onda kako da ne glasaju za četvrtog člana odbora kompanije Trotter Independent Trading Systems?
A ova obesse black feminaci je tek posebna priča.

Кад кренеш да повлађујеш незајажљивима, и даш им прст - увек останеш без шаке, а затим и без целе руке.
Негроиди ће тражити промену химне, прилагођавање заставе и химне њима итдитд.
Једном су имали председника - тражиће стално, јер јасно је да сматрају да као мањина треба да имају све фрај, што подсећа на једну нашу мањину (ми смо гани, ми смо угрожени, дајте нам, дајте, дајте, ако не дате ви Срби сте расисти итдитд).

Dakle trebalo je da urade šta? Da iskopiraju faraone, koji su svako malo slali vojske u subsaharsku afriku da pokupe crnce i onda javno, buzdovanom po glavi istima?  Da znaju gde im je mesto?  Ili je trebalo da se stavi do znanja da niko nije povlašćen zato što je manjina, da ima da se ponaša u skladu sa zakonom ili će snositi posledice. Od traženja normalnih ljudskih i građanskih prava došlo se do toga da im se povlađuje, da im se prelazi preko krađe kulture koja ih je smatrala pripadnicima niže vrste! Veoma interesantno.

Quote from: Аксентије Новаковић on 26-09-2017, 15:15:03

Quote from: akhnaton on 26-09-2017, 15:01:43

Quote from: Аксентије Новаковић on 26-09-2017, 14:50:36

Quote from: akhnaton on 26-09-2017, 09:32:01
Ovo je valjda trebao da bude topic o najbudalastijem predsedniku SAD, a ne o tome šta žele oni koje su u svojoj naivnosti oslobodili Linkoln, Kenedi i Džonson. Dajući slobodu, onu su uz normalne oslobodili i ludake, koje je identitetska politika japi "levičara" napravila večitim žrtvama. Nekada ponosni što mogu da pevaju himnu svoje države, sada se bekelje i pljuju po njoj, jer država ne tetoši i povlađuje! Pa zbog tetošenja i silovanja jezika su naivci i  glasali za Denisa, ne zbog toga što je on bolji izbor od feminaci H.B.C.
U prethodnih 37 godina im je uništeno obrazovanje, deca se zaluđuju video igricama ili se obrazju na gender studijama, lakše je dobiti seks od azijatkinja, transi, ili homoseksualaca nego od belih žena koje bi najradije sa "crnim" tetoviranim alfama, uz zadržavanje belog provajdera. Naravno to sve ako pre toga ne popiju zatvorsku kaznu jer su nekoj rekli da je seksi, a ona to shvatila kao uznemiravanje. Uništen im je ponos, fabrike preseljene u zemlje sa kojima su ratovali što vrelo, što hladno. Žive dvoličnim životima, ovamo su opsednuti fizičkim izgledom, a sa druge strane su svi deformisano debeli. I onda kako da ne glasaju za četvrtog člana odbora kompanije Trotter Independent Trading Systems?
A ova obesse black feminaci je tek posebna priča.

Кад кренеш да повлађујеш незајажљивима, и даш им прст - увек останеш без шаке, а затим и без целе руке.
Негроиди ће тражити промену химне, прилагођавање заставе и химне њима итдитд.
Једном су имали председника - тражиће стално, јер јасно је да сматрају да као мањина треба да имају све фрај, што подсећа на једну нашу мањину (ми смо гани, ми смо угрожени, дајте нам, дајте, дајте, ако не дате ви Срби сте расисти итдитд).

Dakle trebalo je da urade šta? Da iskopiraju faraone, koji su svako malo slali vojske u subsaharsku afriku da pokupe crnce i onda javno, buzdovanom po glavi istima?  Da znaju gde im je mesto?  Ili je trebalo da se stavi do znanja da niko nije povlašćen zato što je manjina, da ima da se ponaša u skladu sa zakonom ili će snositi posledice. Od traženja normalnih ljudskih i građanskih prava došlo se do toga da im se povlađuje, da im se prelazi preko krađe kulture koja ih je smatrala pripadnicima niže vrste! Veoma interesantno.

Моје мишљење да их је требало бродовима вратити у Африку.
Тај пројекат је и био започет, чак га је и Линколн подржавао.
Не знам сада најтачнији податак, али мислим да је око 1000 бродова натоварених црнцима било враћено на њихов континент.

Quote
Why does President Donald Trump care about what gay people do in the bedroom?
The question came up this week, when a lawyer for Trump's Department of Justice argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect LGBTQ Americans from being fired because of their sexual orientation—a complete reversal of the government's position on such matters under previous presidents.
The Justice Department argument Tuesday, before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, came in the case of Donald Zarda who claims he was fired by his company, Altitude Express, for being gay.


The agency inserted itself, even though the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had already sided with Zarda, arguing that LGBTQ employees are protected by Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights law.
That made the hearing odd, to say the least.
"It's a little bit awkward for us to have the federal government on both sides of the case," observed Judge Rosemary Pooler at one point in the oral arguments.
But Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan pressed on anyway, opposing the EEOC, which was still run by an Obama administration holdover when the case first reached the court.
"Employers under Title VII are permitted to consider employees' out-of-work sexual conduct," Mooppan told the judges. "There is a common sense, intuitive difference between sex and sexual orientation."
The lawyer for Zarda's side disagreed in the most basic terms.
"(It's) as conservative as it could possibly get: if having sex with a man is okay for a woman, it has to be okay for a man as well," Greg Nevins of Lambda Legal, tells Newsweek. "You cannot apply a different rule based on gender, according to the law. Apparently, that wasn't conservative enough for the DOJ."


The Justice Department argument reflects a "significant undermining of the Supreme Court's decision on marriage equality," Nevins added.
The arguments came as the full 13-judge Second Circuit reviews an earlier ruling (http://www.law.com/sites/almstaff/2017/09/21/government-agencies-to-clash-in-upcoming-case-on-sexual-orientation/?slreturn=20170828153517) by a three-judge panel in favor of Zarda's former employer. They also came after the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/04/the_7th_circuit_rules_that_anti_gay_employment_discrimination_is_illegal.html) that people can't be fired because they engage in gay sex.
But the law has been interpreted to include protections for sexual orientation for decades, after multiple lower level district courts concluded beginning in 2002 that employees could not be fired simply for being gay. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in April (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/04/the_7th_circuit_rules_that_anti_gay_employment_discrimination_is_illegal.html) that Title VII does in fact cover sexual orientation, noting that any other interpretation of the law would be "confusing and contradictory."
It's not the first time the Trump administration has moved to shred protections for gays.
Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the department has filed multiple amicus briefs arguing against LGBTQ protections, including one for the upcoming high-profile (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kennedy/no-matter-how-you-slice-it-u-s-jurist-kennedy-key-vote-in-cake-case-idUSKCN1C21E9) Supreme Court case, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Earlier this month, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall defended Colorado baker Jack Philips, who was found guilty of violating the state's Anti-Discrimination Act when he refused to make a wedding cake for two men who were getting married even though he routinely makes such cakes for straight couples.
Philips argued his case on First Amendment grounds: as an artist and a Christian, he should not be forced to create a work of art that violates his beliefs. Defying lower courts, the Trump administration agreed.
"Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights," Wall wrote in a brief earlier this month.
Taken together, the Zarda and Masterpiece cases suggest to legal experts that the Trump administration is willfully targeting the gay community.
"It's nothing short of shocking," Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told The Washington Post. The administration, she said, "has already made its hostility" toward the LGBTQ community abundantly clear.
Nevins thinks he knows why—it's good politics for Trump.
"Trump touted his pro-LGBTQ credentials last year [but] one thing that's preserved what's left of his approval rating is that there are people who are happy with his administration fighting the good fight for them," he says. "It's going to play well for them, even if the DOJ is weighing in on losing sides and their arguments are contrary to even conservative notions."

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 12-10-2017, 06:09:56
"I Hate Everyone in the White House!": Trump Seethes as Advisers Fear the President Is "Unraveling" (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers/amp)


A i ovo:


   Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticise him (https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-threatens-shut-down-150300346.html)

Quote
UPDATED--Is President Donald Trump aware residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands are, in fact, Americans? It's unclear.
In a speech Friday, Trump said he'd recently "met with the president of the Virgin Islands" to discuss the recent hurricanes that have devastated Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the island.
But Trump could not have spoken to the "president of the Virgin Islands" because, of course, he is the president of the U.S. Virgin Islands, whose residents are U.S. citizens.


Perhaps Trump was referring to the governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Kenneth Mapp, with whom the president met in early October.
The U.S. Virgin Islands government reluctantly responded to Trump's gaffe.
"I would not want to in any way involve the governor of the Virgin Islands in any national dispute in the media about what the president knows about the relationship between the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands," Sam Topp, deputy communications director for Governor Mapp, tells Newsweek.
"It doesn't serve our purpose to participate in the national hoopla over whether Donald Trump is making competent comments or not. Just look at the documents that govern the relationship [between the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands], and you can determine how relevant or irrelevant, or advised or ill-advised, his comments were. There's no president of the United States other than the president of the United States," Topp adds.

Trump could arguably benefit a great deal from a lesson in the structure of the U.S. government (and perhaps a geography refresher). 

The president also revealed that he doesn't really know the location of Puerto Rico (http://www.newsweek.com/president-donald-trump-puerto-rico-location-ocean-671671), describing it in a talk with reporters as "an island sitting in the middle of an ocean — and it's a big ocean, a really, really big ocean."
Trump was correct that the Atlantic Ocean is a thing and it is quite large, but Puerto Rico is by no means "in the middle" of it. Actually, the Atlantic Ocean doesn't technically begin until the "eastern edge" of the Caribbean, which is roughly 550 miles east of Puerto Rico, according to the International Hydrographic Organization borders universally accepted.
Puerto Rico is in the Caribbean Sea, not the ocean.
The president has been heavily criticized for how he's handled the recovery effort in Puerto Rico, and some feel he's not granted nearly enough attention to the U.S. Virgin Islands (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/06/the-u-s-virgin-islands-is-grappling-for-attention-after-being-hit-by-two-hurricanes/?utm_term=.b6ed489a0c22).
On Thursday, Trump tweeted (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918432809282342912), "We cannot keep FEMA, the Military & the First Responders, who have been amazing (under the most difficult circumstances) in [Puerto Rico] forever!"
Puerto Ricans and Democrats in Congress slammed the president's comments.
"It is not that you do not get it; you are incapable of fulfilling the moral imperative to help the people of PR. Shame on you!" Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, wrote on Twitter (https://twitter.com/CarmenYulinCruz/status/918489293462568962).
New York Representative Nydia Velazquez added in a statement (https://velazquez.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/vel-zquez-s-floor-speech-house-disaster-relief-bill) that Trump's comments "called into question his ability to lead" and she called on him to honor his "responsibility for our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico."
Update: This article has been updated with comments from a representative of the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands provided to Newsweek reporter Abigail Jones.

Quote from: Аксентије Новаковић on 24-10-2017, 18:54:23
Hoće li ovaj tjedan Trump objaviti tajne dokumente o Kennedyevom ubojstvu?

Prema zakonu iz 1992. godine, ovaj tjedan trebalo bi biti objavljeno više od tri tisuće tajnih dokumenata vezanih uz istragu o ubojstvu Johna Fitzgeralda Kennedya. Prema glasinama iz američke administracije, moguće je da će neki od dokumenata i dalje ostati klasificirani kao ,,službena tajna", i to samo ako tako odluči američki predsjednik Donald Trump, koji za to jedini ima ovlaštenje.

Dužnosnici Bijele kuće izjavili su da se među više od 3.000 tajnih dokumenata, koji bi trebali biti objavljeni krajem tjedna, nalaze i dokumenti iz devedesetih godina prošlog stoljeća, koji bi mogli ostati zaštićeni. Pritom nije rečeno o kojim se točno dokumentima radi.

Ova izjava zabrinula je dio javnosti, te nametnula pitanje povoda toj mogućoj cenzuri. Mnogi smatraju da bi Trump trebao objavili dokumentaciju u cijelosti, smatrajući da je on jedini koji to može učiniti, te da je ,,vrijeme da svijet sazna istinu o možebitnoj ulozi CIA-e u ubojstvu američkog predsjednika".

Drugi smatraju da je to pokazatelj da je Trump postao dio ,,skrivene države" (deep state), te ukazuju na činjenicu da se brojne američke obavještajne službe trude svim snagama kako bi blokirale objavu dokumentacije.

Nikad razjašnjeno ubojstvo tadašnjeg američkog predsjednika inspiriralo je razne teze i teorije zavjere, koje nažalost, možda nikad neće biti potvrđene. Među najpopularnijim tezama su one da su ubojstvo isplanirali elementi američkih obavještajnih službi i drugih dijelova same američke vlasti.

U više navrata nagađalo se i o drugim potencijalnim krivcima, poput Fidela Castra, mafije ili izraelskog Mossada, no jedno je sigurno, tko god da je bio pravi organizator atentata, ključni dokazi o tome sigurno su odavno uništeni, a ako i postoje, jamačno se ne nalaze među službenom dokumentacijom.

http://tribun.hr/hoce-li-ovaj-tjedan-trump-objaviti-tajne-dokumente-kennedyevom-ubojstvu/

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 01-12-2017, 11:11:45
Džon Kliz, malopre na tviteru:


(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F2zs04y8.jpg&hash=d974bb5a76a001e73d80af470e4ff1e294f18ca5)


Dosta dobra dijagnoza  :lol:

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 10-12-2017, 06:50:58
Kao neka naučna analiza Trampovog laganja:


I study liars. I've never seen one like Donald Trump. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-liar-20171208-story,amp.html)

Quote
There is something wrong with a political system where the presidency is won on a populist message and the resulting policy is pure plutocracy, where #DrainTheSwamp becomes tax breaks for hedge funds (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/business/republican-tax-plan-carried-interest.html), the well-connected (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-senate-tax-bill-20171204-story.html), and the president's family (http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/last-minute-real-estate-tax-break-gop-bill-will-benefit-trump-2629381).

Quote from: Гражданка Шульц on 21-01-2018, 13:17:07
"Abortus" u 9. mesecu se zove porođaj.

Stabilni genije :lol:

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 12-02-2018, 12:13:48
Denzel Vošington, poznati američki politički analitičar  :lol: