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

B92 juče javio da je laptop američke tajne službe, a vezano za Tramp toranj, ukraden iz agentovog automobila, tako da ćemo tek da vidimo šta Spajser ima.

Dio optužbe nije samo da je Tramp prisluškivan, jer to je nesporno zbog Flina koji je nezakonito bagovan. Već je bitno da je US službama lakše da obezbjede stranoj prijateljskoj službi da baguje Trampa nego da priceduru provuku kroz sistem.

Možda nisu Britanci al neko jeste. Kao što reče Tramp Angeli, zajedničko nam he što nas je Obama prisluškivo!

Ćeraće se još.

 What Trump cut in his budget


tl:dr verzija: vojska dobila povećanje, nauka, zdravstvo, edukacija itd. dobili smanjenje.

Da li se tramptastično putovanje približava kraju...

letter from russia (i): missed opportunities

By:Srdja Trifkovic | March 21, 2017

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/letter-from-russia-i-missed-opportunities/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-presidents-credibility-1490138920

Ti verovatno imaš neku akademsku pretplatu na Wall Street Journal koja ti omogućava da pročitaš ovaj tekst nakon prvog pasusa. Mi ostali... not sou mač.

Hm, ne... sad ni meni ne otvara, a kad sam prvi put kliknuo preko Tvitera na link, prikazao je celo.

Evo pejsta:



March 21, 2017 7:28 p.m. ET
577 COMMENTS

If President Trump announces that North Korea launched a missile that landed within 100 miles of Hawaii, would most Americans believe him? Would the rest of the world? We're not sure, which speaks to the damage that Mr. Trump is doing to his Presidency with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.

The latest example is Mr. Trump's refusal to back off his Saturday morning tweet of three weeks ago that he had "found out that [Barack] Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory" on Election Day. He has offered no evidence for his claim, and a parade of intelligence officials, senior Republicans and Democrats have since said they have seen no such evidence.

Yet the President clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle, rolling out his press spokesman to make more dubious claims. Sean Spicer—who doesn't deserve this treatment—was dispatched last week to repeat an assertion by a Fox News commentator that perhaps the Obama Administration had subcontracted the wiretap to British intelligence.

That bungle led to a public denial from the British Government Communications Headquarters, and British news reports said the U.S. apologized. But then the White House claimed there was no apology. For the sake of grasping for any evidence to back up his original tweet, and the sin of pride in not admitting error, Mr. Trump had his spokesman repeat an unchecked TV claim that insulted an ally.

The wiretap tweet is also costing Mr. Trump politically as he hands his opponents a sword. Mr. Trump has a legitimate question about why the U.S. was listening to his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and who leaked news of his meeting with the Russian ambassador. But that question never gets a hearing because the near-daily repudiation of his false tweet is a bigger media story.

FBI director James Comey also took revenge on Monday by joining the queue of those saying the bureau has no evidence to back up the wiretap tweet. Mr. Comey even took the unusual step of confirming that the FBI is investigating ties between the Trump election campaign and Russia.

Mr. Comey said he could make such a public admission only in "unusual circumstances," but why now? Could the wiretap tweet have made Mr. Comey angry because it implied the FBI was involved in illegal surveillance? Mr. Trump blundered in keeping Mr. Comey in the job after the election, but now the President can't fire the man leading an investigation into his campaign even if he wants to.

All of this continues the pattern from the campaign that Mr. Trump is his own worst political enemy. He survived his many false claims as a candidate because his core supporters treated it as mere hyperbole and his opponent was untrustworthy Hillary Clinton. But now he's President, and he needs support beyond the Breitbart cheering section that will excuse anything. As he is learning with the health-care bill, Mr. Trump needs partners in his own party to pass his agenda. He also needs friends abroad who are willing to trust him when he asks for support, not least in a crisis.

This week should be dominated by the smooth political sailing for Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nominee and the progress of health-care reform on Capitol Hill. These are historic events, and success will show he can deliver on his promises. But instead the week has been dominated by the news that he was repudiated by his own FBI director.

Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump's approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn't show more respect for the truth most Americans may conclude he's a fake President.

Appeared in the Mar. 22, 2017, print edition.

Da, pa, koliko vidim, na kladionicama se verovatnoća impičmenta u okviru prve četiri godine uvećava iz dana u dan.

S druge strane, Tramp je postao predsednik ismevajući postojeće forme, procedure i pravila, pa je ovo samo dosledno ponašanje...

Bato, postoji li sličnost obrazaca medijskih nasrtaja i institucionalnog ostrakizma u SAD i Srbiji?

Pisao je John Keane o mediokratiji, to je trougao (ili četvoro-petougao) aktera koji se obruše na nekoga. Npr, neki poznati novinar, narodni poslanik, neki medij, eventualno nvo, i ospu paljbu. To je prekopirano u Srbiji s trouglom vučićević-pink-vulin/martinović itd...

WSJ je vlasništvo Ruperta Mardoka, ali on je pametniji, preko lista pljucka Trampa a preko Fox-a ga hvali, balansira. Šta god bude, sa svima je sarađivao. Mardok za svaki slučaj onog kome medijski manje pomaže novčano više pomogne.

Inače, koliko je tačno da za sada nema dokaza, toliko je tačno i da je britanska služba lagala da nije nezakonito prisluškivala Kofija Anana. A još nema podataka ko je prisluškivao Flina.

Obama je potpisao ukaz u januaru da sve agencije mogu da imaju pristup svemu na internetu, što je do tada imao samo Snoudenov NSA, i to jeste pokazatelj da je Obama umiješao prste, Godfather style, on na vjenčanju a neko ubija umjesto njega. I poslije kao WSJ traži dokaze, nema ih ni kod Korleonea. Ali, potpisao je ukaz, sve je logično.

Trampe, ne daj se!

Nisi mi odgovorio. Ali, ko je još na direktno pitanje imao direktan odgovor.

Kako nisam, onda ni ne razumijem pitanje ako nisam odgovorio.

Ovo što se radi Trampu je vučićevska mediokratska formacija.

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.

Uvek postavljam pitanje na nadležni šalter. Mogu li još jedno pitanje?


Da li je osnovna razlika što je Trump nasrnuo na neoliberalizam, a Vučić još jezdi na njegovim talasima?

Tramp je nacionalna buržoazija,  to nije baš neki fundamentalni raskid s neoliberalizmom, i tek treba vidjeti šta će da uradi. Ako uvede protekcionizam to bi bio udar na neolib, ali smanjenje poreza korporacijama to nije.

SAD su ipak dibidus neoliberalna zemlja, Vučić je mala maca za njega. Realno, balkanske vlasti su ortački kapitalizam, to čak i nije pravi neoliberalizam,kad pripremaš firmu za svog brata od tetke.

Kod nas je opozicija neoliberalna, npr Radul, a vlast je ideološki bućkuriš.

Pravi neoliberali bi privatizovali sve i ne bi subvencionisali, tako da je Vučićev neolib sveden na stezanje kaiša i radno zakonodavstvo.

Ja nisam siguran da se Trampu i može prikačiti jasna ideološka odrednica u tom smislu. On jeste pričao o zaštiti domaće ekonomije i povukao Američki potpis sa Trans Pacific Partnership sporazuma, što se može tumačiti kao potez naspram neoliberalne agende, ali je predlog budžeta (sažvakano nekoliko postova iznad) prilično na drugu stranu: zdravstvo, edukacija, poljoprivreda, energetika itd. su svi dobili kresanja a povećan je budžet za vojsku i otadžbinsku bezbednost, što je praktično u skladu sa neolib fiskalnim idejama o smanjivanju države svuda sem u odbrani itd.

Da, ali neoliberalizam istinski se mjeri u tome da li stvara tržište, da li obezbjeđuje da tržište nesmetano funkcioniše, bez intervencija. A krupna je stvar ako on ometa globalno slobodno tržište.

A zdravstvo, obrazovanje itd, to je i klasični liberalizam, ne mora biti neo.

Jasno je to meni, ali svakako treba da gledamo šta Tramp radi odvojeno od onog što priča. Trenutno (meni) nije najjasnije na kojoj je strani priče o slobodnom tržištu, protekcionizmu, small governmentu itd.

To da, trenutno mu je Benon totalno protiv korporacija i za male firme, a Tilerson mu je teški naftaš s druge strane.

U suštini, neoliberalizam je siromašio SAD i protekcionističke mjere bi bogatstvo trebalo da vrate nazad. Ali sve ostalo je za sada stara priča.

Al dobro, treba imati u vidu da Ameri generalno jesu sumnjičavi prema onome što je u Evropi normalno.

Sanders govorio o drž. zdravstvu i ukidanju školarina, Klintonka kritikovala bukvalno da je Sanders obećao "free this and free that".

To je njihov pogled na socijalni sistem, mi bi precedniku glavu skinuli s ramena kad bi iztrampovao obrazovni i zdravstveni sistem do te mjere.

Malo mi smeta: dža tam', dža 'vam' pravo tamo gde pišam. I nama je još mutno posle 35. godina samoupravnog socijalizma. Tačno toliko je trajao i neoliberalizam. Još se zamaskirao iza liberalizma. Da prostiš, Meho, ti si neolib handrid procents, pa su mi jasni tvoji stavovi. Muči me Batino batrganje. Kao književni kritičar kad mu pisci nisu pokojni bar pedeset godina. Trebalo bi da bude jasno i precizno da neoliberalizam ukida državu kao mehanizam, a Trump radi suprotno. Sve ostalo spada u neku novu tranziciju. Vučićev bućkuriš je samo verzija položaja Srbije. Cilj je konačno isti - vratiti državu u državu.

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

WTF??? Otkad to??? Moguće je da ti ne čitaš šta ja pišem ovde, u stvari.

Meho od svog čovekoljublja i čovekougađanja ni ne pomišlja na neoliberalizam!

Ma čovekolublje na stranu, nije li ovde još uvek zabeleženo moje dosadno raspravljanje sa Borisom u kome sam iznosio brojne svoje zamerke na neoliberalnu filozofiju (u okviru, naravno, mog poznavanja iste, koje nije baš iscrpno), moje često linkovanje Krugmanovih blog-postova koji su takođe u suprotnosti sa fridmanovštinom, na kraju krajeva, Krugmanov ogromni prikaz knjige Kapital u 21. veku koji sam takođe linkovao itd.

Sa Borisom se raspravljao Bata i tu i tamo ja. A, nemoguće je raspetljati šta sve nisi linkovao. Tvoje ne-iscrpno poznavanje priznajem.

Dobro, to me onda abolira za bar fifti procents 

Šta da radimo kad su svi ideološki šuntavi...

Imaš Čikašku školu a imaš i austrijsku i njemačku školu neoliberalizma, da njima kažeš da su isti nagrabusio bi.

Npr, Čikago ukida socijalu a njemačka škola ne ukida, a austrijska je podijeljena po tome na Mizesa i Hajeka.

Tako za Mizesom ide čikaški Fridman, a Hajek ka Njemcima, i na kraju u klinču Merkel i Tramp, a oboje mogu biti neoliberali ali različite škole.

No, neoliberalizam u praksi je intervencionistički i imperijalistički, a u teorijskim školama takav ne može da bude. Tako da na kraju je neoliberalizam ono što stvarno rade, jer su idejni neoliberalizam oklevetali.

Vučić je tu periferija koja moli investitore a Radul ne bi subvencionisao a usput mu je Vučko fiskalno strog. Nači lud zbunjenog.

Svjetske finansijske organizacije ti kao daju kredit pod uslovom da ga potrošiš a ne uložiš, jer hoće da te deindustrijalizuju i bace u dužničko ropstvo. To je Tadić uradio a Vučić pokušava da skupi bijedu koja je ostala oživljavajući industriju kroz pelena fabrike, i gradnjom saobraćajne infrastrukture, koja bi kao privukla investitore, a realno i da naplaćujemo prelazak.

Alternativa ovim neolib putevima su megaprojekti, ali uz to ide još veće stezanje kaiša. Ako vam je sada tijesno, kako bi vam bilo s njudilovskim radovima. Druga alternativa su Dveri, aj na selo. Radul bi izazvao građanski rat.

Majstoreeee!

Trudim se!

Jbg, ne možeš se probiti kroz pitanje
who gets what, when and how.

Šta 'oćeš? Samo sam te ja pitao. Dva pitanjca. Ostali već sve znaju.

 Why Trump wanted to force a vote on health care

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."
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 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 of people approve of it. Groups on all sides are blasting it as terrible. You were even forced to acknowledge it would actively harm many of the people who voted for you.
And worse, you are far, far out of your depth policy-wise. As it turns out, "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. You can get out there, tell wavering Republicans 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, 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 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."

'Trumpcare' suffers stunning blow as GOP committee chair comes out against it

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 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.

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!

Pravi prikriveni obrađivač Ravne Zemlje!

Znao sam ja da si ti od naših, samo se kriješ.Ako,ako, ponekad pomislim da ni ja nisam baš možda onakav kakvim se predstavljam ,niti onakav kakav mislim da sam.... ...ali nema veze, samo cepaj, svi smo naši! 

Ništa nije onako kako izgleda. Molićeš ti mene, do kraja, da pristanem na malo, malecko zakrivljenje, a ja ću ti pokazati moju zbirku holo-otisaka svemira, složenu kao long plej gramofonske ploče.

Zbirke pravog, izvornog sajfaja?

ОБАМА НА ЧЕЛУ ОБАВЕШТАЈНЕ ПОБУНЕ ПРОТИВ ТРАМПА?

ПАТРИК БЈУКЕНЕН
Због ког добронамерног разлога би амерички обавештајци туђим владама слали тајне податке који наносе штету њиховом председнику?

  http://standard.rs/svet/37333-обама-на-челу-обавештајне-побуне-против-трампа

Snoudenizam ekstremnih razmera. Najplaćeniji zanat postao cinkarenje svojih. Da se pridružim: moja žena pre neki dan zaboravila da stavi pirinač u meso za sarmu.

Scallopsarmaleaks

Konspiracija je inspiracija.

To mora da je bila najbolja sarma svih vremena!

The buck stops with Trump

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."

Fights erupt at pro-Trump rally on California beach

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.

Ako mu je objašnjavala žena onda je to u startu propalo. Čovek je mizogin.

Trump Is Dragging Us Into Another War... And No One Is Talking About It

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. 

Ali ako Tramp sarađuje s Putinom protiv ISIS-a onda situacija nije ista kao u Iraku. Prvo, ISIS-a ne bi ni bilo da ga nije CIA finansirala. Drugo, sad je ISIS prilično finansijski nezavistan, ali čak i sa svom tom finansijom ISIS nije država, nema bazu koju država ima, i iako ima utočište u Turskoj to je kratkog daha jer Turska mora da radi ono što joj Amerika i Rusija kažu. Treće, u Iraku i Avganistanu Amerika se bori sama, a ovde ima Rusiju, Siriju, Kurde, i podršku ostatka sveta (pod uslovom da je cilj zaista eliminacija ISIS-a, a ne obaranje Asada, što ne može biti jer Tramp je Putinov drug).

Tu se još malo zna, sem da Turcima smeta jačanje Kurda uz granicu, i da su Amerikanci tamo zbog toga, samo se ne zna na čijoj strani.

Pretpostavlha se da postoji prećutna saradnja s Putinom dok prestanu mekejnovci i klintonisti da histerišu.

Molim da se preskoče Macove procene. Kao i obično, veze nemaju sa realnošću - virtuality.

Можда се одговор или неки његов део крије у овом одличном Спутњиковом тексту, а можда ће страх од јачања иранског утицаја послужити као маска за бога питај какве нове поделе карата.


https://rs.sputniknews.com/komentari/201703261110526904-Izrael-Iran-Sirija-siiti-saudijska-Arabija-Rusija11/

Meni izađe na isto kad me Bata neargumentovano kritikuje i kad me neko drugi neargumentovano kritikuje. Budite promena kakvu želite na forumu...

Važno je da ti sebi kažeš da je neargumentovano? Ništa preispitivanje? Oh, kako religiozno!

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

Možda sam nepismen, pa ne razumem napisano. Šta je ovde argument?


Dokle više tog nipodaštavanja? Imam i ja dušu...

Pa, kad nastupaš odozgo, onda te drmaju odozdo. Pretpostavku izlažeš kao činjenicu, a to je naturanje. Recimo da mi je dosta linkovanja i tumačenja linkova. Cenio bih procenu, preispitivanje, sumnju. Kad svega toga nema, preostaje da sam jedini od vas bio u Iraku. Kako se formulišu stavovi, ako je baza nepouzdana? Hajde, inženjer si ti, možeš bolje. Da si da ne kažem ko, manje bi mi smetalo.

Za bolje mora više vremena. Na poslu više vremena nema, a i kod kuće postoji sijaset drugih stvari koje su mi preče od eseja o bliskoistočnoj krizi. Ja čak nisam ni politikolog ni bezbednjak. Da li to znači da ne smem da kažem šta mislim? Valjda imamo pravo na svoj stav. Ja sam čak i otvoren ka ideji da promenim stav u svetlu novih informacija, pa zato daj informacije, a ne drmanje odozdo. U mom postu nisam spomenuo Iran, što jeste propust, ali je istovremeno i nebitno za ono što sam želeo da kažem (da hipotetički rat u Siriji nije isto što i rat u Iraku). Niko ne želi da se otvoreno sukobi sa Iranom, i svi bi radije da se skoncentrišu na ISIS. Ni sam Iran ne želi direktan sukob.

Nema novih informacija. Sve su stare, prastare. Ko je ISIS? Suniti ili šiiti? Ooops! Kako se generiše sukob? E, dovedeno je do savršenstva. Da si ćelav našli bi ti kudravog da te podjebava. Potrebno je samo da sačiniš ring. Beng! Sudar može da počne. Pogledaš ko se time bavi, onako intenzivno, na naučnoj bazi i našao si krivca, podstrekača. Ali, lakše je sa linkovima. Imaš linkove, imaš mišljenje i već si na pozornici. Sramotno je to. Čovek mora da misli da bi imao mišljenje.