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

Ma to je klasičan populizam, naravno. Sanders i Tramp, iako u medijima prikazani kao ultra levičar i ultra desničar, zapravo dele dosta zajedničkih stavova i dragi su delu birača jer ni jedan ni drugi ne primaju donacije od korporativnog/ finansijskog sektora, jer se zalažu za veće poreze za najbogatije a ista ili veća socijalna davanja za najsiromašnije. Njihova najveća razlika se odnosi na spoljnu politiku (mada je Tramp kao i Sanders javno govorio protiv intervencije u Iraku), ali u unutrašnjoj, Tramp je mnogo više socialist-friendly od, recimo Hilari Klinton koja je, rekosmo, prijateljica najcrnjeg bankarskog sektora (videti, recimo razliku između nje i Sandersa u idejama o zdravstvenom osiguranju - Hilari priča o produbljivanju Affordable Care obuhvata, a Sanders, kao i Tramp gura single payer varijantu koja je "socijalističkija").

Lessons From Game Theory: What Keeps Kasich in the Race?

Quote

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

I, evo, afroamerički glasovi su je doveli do pobede u Južnoj Karolini:

Hillary Clinton wins South Carolina as Bernie Sanders flops with black voters

Quote

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

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

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

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

Džon Oliver rastura, Make Donald Drumpf Again:

! No longer available

Pred Super Tuesday, zanimljiv tekst:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/first-to-last-super-tuesday_us_56d0c445e4b0bf0dab322993?utm_hp_ref=politics

Heh, heh, Farakanu se dopada Tramp 

Louis Farrakhan on Donald Trump: 'I Like What I'm Looking At'

Dakle, Supertjuzdi, Tramp razvalio, Republikanci su sada već ozbiljno zabrinuti jer ispada da će njihov kandidat na izborima na kraju biti čovek koga niko iz vrha stranke ne želi, a Hilari značajno ojačala svoju poziciju. Sasvim moguće da će na kraju izbori da se svedu na Tramp vs. Klinton.


Trump claims 7 GOP victories, extending dominance

The night Hillary Clinton regained her inevitability

Moguće je, ali daleko od toga da je Hilari obezbijedila nominaciju. Sanders je pobijedio u 4 države, a skupio veliki broj delegata i u ostalim. Upravo južne države, u kojima je glasanje završeno su za Sandersa i bile najproblematičnije, biće mu lakše kako process odmiče. Ostalo je još 35 država.

Da, pa, Sanders i kaže da će se sad žestoko boriti za svaku državu. No, ovo je Klintonki svakako napravilo dobru inerciju, vidiš da je onaj gore uzleteo da priča o njenom "inevitabilitiju" 

Vjerovatno je istina za inerciju ili "momentum" kako oni kažu, ali što se medija tiče, ne zaboravi da je većina medija daleko naklonjenija njoj, iz očiglednih razloga - njihovi vlasnici spadaju u 1%. Mediji u SAD rijetko padaju na grane medija sa Balkana, ali je iluzorno očekivati objektivne analize u bilo čemu što prismrdi mainstream medijima.

Srećom, danas imamo, kako se to obićno kaže, uticajne tviteraše 

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

D horor. D horor.

Ma, čujte, pošto nas najviše zanima spoljna politika, nije da smo se s Obamom, mirotvorcem, usrećili. Možda Tramp bude benevolentniji prema Srbima po nekakvoj skoro-pa-rođačkoj liniji 


Edit: Nego, Krekd analizira veličinu fenomena Tramp:




5 Ways We Got The Trump Campaign Wrong: An Insider Explains

No Shame for Bill and Hillary: Entitlement Has No Boundaries

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

Bill Clinton has once again exhibited a lack of integrity.

During yesterday's Super Tuesday primaries, the former president entered a polling station with Boston mayor Marty Walsh while campaigning for his wife in Massachusetts, a state that could have swayed for either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. It is illegal to campaign within 150 feet of a polling station, and given that he was an elected official for several years, Mr. Clinton was certainly aware he was breaking the rules.

Mr. Clinton defended himself, arguing he did not campaign or approach voters. But, because of his notoriety, he didn't need to approach anyone—they were bound to confront him. When one voter asked for a photo with Mr. Clinton, he smugly responded, "as long as we're not violating any election laws." He knew there would be no reprehension because of his powerful political status, while in 2008 he continuously accused the Obama campaign of voter intimidation.

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

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

At a Clinton campaign rally last week, a former marine vocalized his disdain for how Ms. Clinton handled Benghazi as Secretary of State, and Mr. Clinton responded by yelling at the individual to "shut up and listen." Ms. Clinton displayed this same abrasiveness when interrupted by a Black Lives Matter activist at one of her $500-a-plate fundraisers. Ms. Clinton immediately responded to the activist angrily, out shouting the activist until security forcibly removed him from the fundraiser. During similar disturbances, her opponent, Mr. Sanders, either let the activist speak or addressed them in an understanding, compassionate manner. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton knew the incidences were being videotaped and would receive national attention, yet still reacted with entitlement—for who dares interrupt them when they are speaking?

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

Ms. Clinton's political record is filled with unapologetic contradictions. Nearly everything she has said during the 2016 presidential primaries can be traced back to completely contradictory past statements, and when confronted she reverts to planned, dismissive talking points. Ms. Clinton repeatedly obstructed the investigation into her e-mail server as Secretary of State, dodged her involvement in the Benghazi scandal and has refused to release her speech transcripts to large financial firms while claiming to be the champion of Wall Street reform. She has attacked Mr. Sanders for discrepancies on his record for gun control, while an NRA lobbyist will be co-hosting a fundraiser for her in mid-March. Her role as Secretary of State during the Obama administration is touted as a qualification for the presidency, when in reality her foreign policy was interventionist, resulting in a reduction in safety and national security as the war in Iraq imploded into the rise of ISIS in the Middle East.

Once a proponent for rallying Democrats to make universal healthcare a reality, Ms. Clinton now criticizes Mr. Sanders for his single payer healthcare plan while racking up more donations from large pharmaceutical companies than any other candidate. She has merely adopted popular aspects of Mr. Sanders' campaign platform to appease Democrats to the left with meaningless social justice rhetoric to compound her loyal support from the moderate Democratic establishment. Leading up to the Democratic presidential primaries, Ms. Clinton used her political and corporate influence to virtually crown herself the Democratic presidential nominee, similar to how she selected New York in 2000 to serve as U.S. Senator, a state to which she had no unique ties but knew she could win with little-to-no opposition. Politicians are generally thought to be two-faced on some level, but Bill and Hillary Clinton take it to appallingly shameless levels.

A sa druge strane:

  Exclusive: Koch brothers will not use funds to try to block Trump nomination

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

A evo šta kaže urednik mog omiljenog ne-mejnstrim medija:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

хафингтон пост није не-мејнстрим...веома је мејнстрим, део аол/веризона

Nisam mislio na huff post nego na the young turks.

добар је то канал

Imali su crnju, sad će imati ženturaču. Tramp je samo klovn i taman da dubi na trepavicama neće biti izabran. Ako ništa drugo, brojaće glasove ručno i pobediće Hilari za dva glasa.

Cruz, Trump each grab 2 wins; Dems divide states too

Quote

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

Why you may not like Ted Cruz's face, according to science

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

Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

Quote

For those of you salivating — or trembling — at the thought of Hillary Clinton being clapped in handcuffs as she prepares to deliver her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention this summer: deep, cleansing breath. Based on the available facts and the relevant precedents, criminal prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information in her emails is extraordinarily unlikely.

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

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

There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924, a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to "knowingly remove" classified information "without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location."

Prosecutors used this provision in securing a guilty plea from former CIA director David H. Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation and fined $100,000. But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.

Petraeus clearly knew the material he provided to Paula Broadwell was classified and that she was not authorized to view it. "Highly classified . . . code word stuff in there," he told her. He lied to FBI agents, the kind of behavior that tends to inflame prosecutors.

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

The government used the same statute in 2005 against former national security adviser Sandy Berger, who was sentenced to probation and fined $50,000. Here, too, the conduct was more evidently egregious than what the public record shows about Clinton's. Berger, at the National Archives preparing for the 9/11 investigations, twice took copies of a classified report out of the building, hiding the documents in his clothes.

For Clinton, the worst public fact involves a 2011 email exchange with aide Jake Sullivan. When she has trouble receiving a secure fax, Clinton instructs Sullivan to "turn [it] into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure." But Clinton has said she was not asking for classified information. In any event, it does not appear her instructions were followed.

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

Section 793(f) covers a person with access to "national defense" information who through "gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust." The government has used the "gross negligence" provision to prosecute a Marine sergeant who accidentally put classified documents in his gym bag, then hid them in his garage rather than returning them, and an Air Force sergeant who put classified material in a Dumpster so he could get home early.

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

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

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

Why Did Hillary Clinton Need a Private Server? The Answer Makes Bernie Sanders President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U jednom tekstu se kaže da nema šanse da bude optužena, u drugom da optužnica samo što nije.

Rekao bih da se u oba slučaja radi o špekulacijama, jer niko ne zna šta tačno FBI radi niti kakve su dokaze i za šta prikupili.


U međuvremenu, Berni je ušao u istoriju, i to istoriju istraživanja javnog mnjenja.  Naime, pobijedio je u Mičigenu, uprkos predviđanjima istraživanja da Hilari ima prednost od 12 do 20 %. Tolika greška u predviđanju rezultata se nikada ranije nije dogodila u Americi.


Ne računajući superdelegate, Klintonovka ima i dalje prednost od oko 200 delegata. Ali ako Berni uspije da pobijedi u nekoliko velikih država, ta prednost će se istopiti. A superdelegati se možda i predomisle do jula, u zavisnosti od rezultata. Dešavalo se to i ranije. Kome nije jasno, evo citat iz Wiki:

"Superdelegates are elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee who will vote at the Democratic National Convention for their preferred candidate.Also known as "unpledged delegates," they may change their preference at any time and comprise about one sixth of the delegates to the convention."


Stvar je u tome što veliki broj superdelegata dolazi iz zajednica koje su takođe glasale u unutarstranačkim izborima i što će veliki broj njih opet nastupati na izborima. I sad je teško zamisliti da će glasati za predsjednika suprotno onome za šta je glasala većina partije iz njihove zajednice, jer je sasvim moguće da to bude kažnjeno na prvim sljedećim izborima. Istina je da i određeni broj superdelegata ne zavisi ni na koji način od glasača na izborima, ali je u pitanju ipak manjina.

Ako Klintonovka ipak uspije da naniže nekoliko velikih pobjeda, a naročito u velikim državama tipa Ilionois i Florida (glasa se 15. marta), gotovo je, pobijediće.
Sv nešto mislim da se to neće desiti. Inercija i energija je na Bernijevoj strani. Tokom cijele godine on je privlačio nove glasače. Ona je uspijevala samo da ih gubi.


Kod Republikanaca haos. Marko Rubio na ivici ponora. Sa svih strana mu stižu savjeti da se povuče iz trke i spašava karijeru, jer bi mu dalja bruka, a naročito na Floridi koja mu je matična država zapečatila budućnost. Tramp dobija nešto manje glasova nego ranije, ali nije previse oštećen. Kruz je uspio da pobijedu u još par država. Problem sa Kruzom je, naravno, što je veći konzervativac od Trampa i što nema ni teoretsku šansu da pobijedi na izborima za predsjednika. On ima svoj krug tvrdokornih podržavalaca, ali nema teorije da privuče nezavisne glasače, pa čak ni dobar broj Republikanaca.


Međutim... Ako se trend iz prethodne nedjelje nastavi, Tramp neće dobiti potrebnu većinu. Što void u otvorenu konvenciju. Nakon prvog kruga glasanja, u kojem nijedan od kandidata ne ostvari dovoljnu podršku, svima je dozvoljeno da trguju, mijenjaju mišljenje itd. Što znači da  odjednom Džon Kejsik postaje relevantan kandidat. Pogotovo ako uspije da pobijedi u Ohaju, svojoj matičnoj državi (a hoće) i napabirči kojeg delegata tamo i ovamo. Jer on ostaje jedini iza kojeg je establišment spreman da stane u takvom scenariju.

Ali ako Kejsik ostane što ne bi i Rubio?

Iz istog razloga iz kog je Jeb! otpao. Naime, uprkos podrsci iz centrale stranke i ogromnim sredstvima upumpanim u njegovu kampanju jos nije pobjedio ni u jednoj drzavi, nego uporno zavrsava kao 3. i 4. Odnosno, vec ima oreol "gubitnika". On je od samog pocetka bio favorit "centrale".  Naravno, ako ostane u trci do konvencije i on ima sanse. Kejsikove ambicije su bile daleko manje, kao i podrska koju je primio.

Odlična analiza situacije kod Demokrata:

5 Reasons the Clinton-Sanders Race Is Much, Much Closer Than You Think

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Tonight Was the Night the Republican Establishment Gave Up

Quote
#NeverTrump? More like #NeverMind.
The Republican establishment all but capitulated to Donald Trump on Thursday night, treating the party's frontrunner with kid gloves in the most subdued debate yet of the 2016 primary season.>Read more: Everything You Missed From the GOP Debate in Miami

Gone were the unsparing attacks on the billionaire real estate tycoon's business record, his character and even his credibility as a conservative. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich instead tread carefully around Trump, gently prodding him at times but avoiding a scorched-earth approach against the man who remains overwhelmingly likely to be the party's nominee in the fall.
A man in charge: With a commanding lead in the delegate count and a decent chance of effectively securing the GOP nomination after next Tuesday's delegate-rich nominating contests, Trump needed only to avoid a disastrous performance. Accordingly, he adopted a low-risk approach, steering clear on the vehement attacks he's waged on rivals like Cruz, Rubio and the departed Jeb Bush in previous debates.
Trump's mission on Thursday night: To present himself as a credible standard-bearer who could unite the party's disparate factions, despite his penchant for incendiary rhetoric and relentless counterpunching.
"We're all in this together," Trump said. "We're going to come up with solutions. We're going to find the answers to things. And so far, I cannot believe how civil it's been up here."
Trump seemed to be enjoying himself — and it wasn't hard to see why.
Not biting the bait: After aggressively attacking Trump in recent weeks on everything from the size of his hands to his family inheritance, Rubio mostly stood down on Thursday night, following a string of dismal performances at the ballot box.
Even when Rubio did ding Trump, he did so in a largely mild tone. On entitlement programs, Rubio said, Trump's "numbers don't add up."



Cruz also went after Trump on the issue, noting similarities between Trump's rhetoric on Social Security, which the businessman vows to protect, and that of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.
But asked whether he'd just compared Trump and Clinton, Cruz would only say,  "I will let Donald speak for himself."
Later in the debate, Cruz did criticize Trump for his past contributions to Democrats — hardly a new line of attack, and one that appears well baked into Republican voters' assessment of Trump.
Not all hands-off: Notably, the sharpest attacks on Trump concerned his harsh rhetoric toward American Muslims and his stance on foreign policy — neither likely to damage Trump with voters, in light of exit poll data showing strong support for his proposed ban on foreign Muslims entering the country, and given that anger at the domestic political establishment is the defining theme of the topsy-turvy 2016 primary.
On Islam, Trump "says the things people want to say," Rubio said. "But presidents can't just say anything they want. It has consequences around the world."
The senator went on to call for working "together with people of the Muslim faith even as Islam faces a serious crisis within it."
Meanwhile, Cruz chided Trump for stating in February that he'd be "neutral" on the Israel-Palestine conflict — but after Trump asserted his staunch support for Israel, Cruz suggested that perhaps Trump's support for a peace deal wasn't "inten[ded]" to be anti-Israel, but that it was in practice.


Cruz also ridiculed Trump's foreign policy as amounting to chants of "China bad, Muslim bad." And later in the debate, he asserted that Trump's nomination would mean victory for Clinton — a sharp departure from the delicate tip-toeing that defined the bulk of the debate.
The road from here: Though the odds of vanquishing Trump are vanishingly small after his strong wins in Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii this week, Cruz remains the only viable threat to Trump still in the race, with a win in Florida next week looking out of Rubio's reach and Kasich with no clear path even if he wins the Ohio primary on Tuesday.
Establishmentarians who fear Trump, then, are left to deal with the awkward reality that their best shot at dislodging him is to prop up a man who rails against his party's leaders as liars and has earned the enmity of his fellow GOP senators.
Basic mathematics essentially foreclosed any other option, but Rubio and Kasich did nothing to change that dynamic on Thursday.

Rejčel Madou kaže da će republikanska partija preživeti Trampa, jer se ovo već desilo 1964.:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/the-republican-party-may-just-survive-trump-641001027891

Obe partije hoce da ga se rese, mora da radi nesto kako treba

Bernie Sanders Said Something We Weren't Ready to Hear Last Night

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, as we know, those remarks cost that Lincoln rube his seat in the House and ended his political career.
The 20^th century was even worse. We insistently meddled in Cuba throughout it, even though our meddling came dangerously close to blowing up the entire world. Within our own hemisphere, we backed dictator after dictator, oligarch after oligarch. We armed terrorists. We financed coups. We allowed bombings and drug smuggling. We sold missiles to the mullahs in order to finance our terrorists. Somoza. Pincochet. Batista. Rios-Montt. To paraphrase John Quincy Adams, we did not go far abroad to find monsters to support.These are just some of the people who did not live long enough to rebut HRC's presumption of American innocence:
The 68 passengers of Cubana Airlines Flight 455.
(But one of the architects of this atrocity, Orlando Bosch, died in a nice bed in Miami thanks to the intervention of influential Americans, including Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Jeb -!- Bush.)
The 900 citizens of El Mozote, El Salvador.
(But one of the architects of the cover-up, the unspeakable Elliott Abrams, now has a cushy gig advising Young Marco Rubio's crumbling presidential campaign.)
Maura Clarke, Ita Ford, Dorothy Kazel, and Jean Donovan, slaughtered by the US-backed Salvadoran national guard.
(But one of the architects of that cover-up, the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Ronald Reagan.)
Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt.
(Pinochet, of course, died under "house arrest." And the boss of his Caravan of Death went straight to the depths of hell in a nursing home on Wednesday.)
Eight Jesuit priests and their housekeeper and her son, gunned to ribbons in El Salvador.
(Abrams, again)
Blessed Oscar Romero.
(But Roberto DeAubisson, the American-trained death-squad jefe who ordered the assassination, lived to die of cancer in what I am sure was a very nice hospital. He was a beloved figure among the Reagan foreign policy elite, until he became inconvenient and, yeah, Abrams again.)
This is only a partial list, of course. It doesn't include the thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and citizens of other countries who got caught in the gears of the so-called Monroe Doctrine down through the centuries. (Hola,Vera Cruz!) The pundits are right that Sanders' statements back in the 1980s are fertile ground for conservative ratfcking-look how easy it was for HRC to turn them around on him-and likely would be used to make a meal out of him in a general election. The biggest problem that Sanders has here, though, is that he told a truth that we're still not prepared to hear. That Elliott Abrams has not been fitted with a leper's bell yet is proof enough of that.

Trump's new normal: campaign rallies where chaos is expected

Quote

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

Plus ovo, Amerikanci u potpuno crtanofilmovskom shvatanju istorije i njenih figura. Ko bi to očekivao? Oh, čekajte...


Trump supporter explains what led to 'Heil, Hitler' salute at canceled Chicago rally

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

A ima i ovako, koliko je tacno ne znam ali me ne bi cudilo.

ja sam oduševljen Trampom, čoek je izludio sve američke mediokritete, lik se svađa sa papom, kaže da je ga je Romni preklinjao za podršku 2012. toliko da je bio spreman da klekne na koljena, neće da se direktno distancira od KKK klana, sve ih zajebava toliko da dođu neke civil rights grupe i upadaju na njegove mitinge

uvijek se sjetim epizode Suddenly Susa, kada se Hulk Hogan kandiduje za gradonačelnika, rastura u kampanji, sve žive iznervira nevjerovatnim ponašanjem u skladu sa američkim rvanjem (btw Tramp je takođe dio te sportske federacije)

pobijedi, i onda slijedi ova scena

! No longer available

nema kompletne epizode, bar ne mogu da nađem, ali zamislite američkog rvača koji dere sve redom, pobijedi na izborima, i onda slijedi ovog gore

Evo, da se Bato kandiduje i u kampanji referencira na bilo koji način Suddenly Susan, ja bi' odma' glasô za njega.
I'm not even kidding.

kad smo kod pop kulture

https://www.rt.com/usa/335148-bernie-sanders-gordon-gekko-greed/

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

Zasto nisam iznenadjena?

Mislim na spektakularan nastup, a ideoloski se pretjerano i ne razlikuje od sandersa

Stavise, ne vidim nijedan razlog da Srbi glasaju za Sandersa, za koga glasaju samo waspovci iz nju hempsira

Trump je kao troll ali u real life-u

Dobro, ali Tramp makar podseća da je američki predizborni cirkus baš to - cirkus. Da nije njega možda bi neko ozbiljno shvatao lupetanja likova kao što su Rubio, Kruz pa čak i Karson (koji sada podržava Trampa jer je shvatio da nije otišao full retard u svojoj kampanji) a ovako je eksplicitno prikazano šta se dešava kada u borbi za kandidaturu potpuno odustanete od 1) ideologije i 2) činjenica i samo pričate stvari koje kreiraju zanimljive naslove na bazfidu.



Naravno, it tejks a trol tu nou a trol:


Anonymous has declared 'total war' on Donald Trump, threatening to 'dismantle his campaign'

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


"We need you to shut down his websites, to research and expose what he doesn't want the public to know. We need to dismantle his campaign and sabotage his brand. We are encouraging every able person with a computer to participate in this operation. This is not a warning, this is a declaration of total war. Donald Trump – it is too late to expect us."
In a separate written message posted online, Anonymous listed a number of websites chosen to be the initial targets in the attack including trump.com, donaldjtrump.com andtrumphotelcollection.com.
Alongside these chosen targets, the post lists a slew of unverified personal information purporting to belong to Donald Trump, including a social security number, personal phone number and the contact details of his agent and legal representation.
This is not the first time a hacking group has attempted to take on Donald Trump. In January 2016 a separate group called the New World Hackers carried out multiple DDoS attacks on his official election campaign website – effectively taking it offline for a short period of time. Recently, Anonymous leaked messages from his phone's voicemail account which included personal communications from journalists, sports stars and boxing promotors.
Anonymous, which is a loose collective of hacktivists, routinely engages high-profile targets as part of its cyber-campaigns. Previous subjects have included the Islamic State (IS), the Vatican and most recently the Turkish government.
Read the original article on IB Times UK.  Copyright 2016. Follow IB Times UK on Twitter.

Ako pravi mediji smatraju da je trolovanje newsworthy materijal i ako javnost te medije konzumira onda je Tramp, jelte, predsednilčki kandidat koga ta javnost možda ne želi ali koga zaslužuje.

Hilari pobjedila u svih pet država. U dvije sa 1% razlike. Svejedno, za Bernija je gotovo. Matematički i dalje postoji šansa, realno - nema je. 
Tramp pobijedo u Floridi, Rubio odustao od nominacije, Kejsik dobio u Ohaju - sada je najvjerovatniji izbor kandidata na konvenciji.

tramp ne samo da je trol masta, nego je i genije. Pogledajte samo reakciju na papinu pricu da onaj koji gradi zid nije hriscanin. Ostali cute, nece da komentarisu, iako su i sami protiv imigracije, samo Tramp dokazuje da je sekularan. Ovi em pricaju stalno kako su new born krscani, vec i cute pspi kad se mijesa u svjetovnu oblast. Lijepo mu kaze donaldinjo da ce se moliti da tramp bude predsjednik ako isis napadne vatikan. To je dvostepeno genijalno trolanje, umjesto da se brani i podsjeca na sekularnu drzavu, tramp raspali po sticeniku sv. Petra.


I tako, genijalne ideje popu kineskog zida i zaustavljanja globalizacije pokazuju i da tramp cita istoriju drugih civilizacija, siguran sam da ce citirati konfucija uskoro!

Ne znam da li ste spominjali spot RATM iz '99, Sleep now in the fire...

The Clintons' War on Women

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

House of Cards 1/1

normalno, pa nece valjda Tramp da bude negativac u True Detective?

Eh, pa naravno, zašto da ne....