Amerika -izbori 2016

[Aco Popara Zver]

to smješkanje je stvarno uznemirujuće, i nije se desilo jednom

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/


realno, nesam šrink al mogu da pogledam, to je simptom šizofrenije

[Aco Popara Zver]

eo male igre ''Ko laže?''

Hafington
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-nonsense-on-obamacare_us_580f6a39e4b0a03911eec257

NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-affordable-care-act.html?_r=0

PBS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trumps-debate-claim-health-care-costs-rising-true/


NA brzinu pogledano, izgleda da PBS ponajmanje laže... mada, naravno, sva tri medija, opet najmanje PBS, ignorišu fakat da je Sandersovo zdravstvo bilo ponajbolje.

[Aco Popara Zver]

[Meho Krljic]

 Michael Bloomberg nails the 'greatest conundrum' America faces today 

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

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

[Aco Popara Zver]

Ne, bolje Tramp el hefe a demokratska većina u Kongresu!

[Meho Krljic]

Donald Trump: 'We Should Just Cancel the Election and Just Give It to Trump'

[Meho Krljic]

Bejbi, it ejnt ouver til itz ouver.

Clinton calls on FBI to release 'full and complete facts' from email probe 

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

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

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

Kao i:


2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election 

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

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

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

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

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

[Dybuk]

Let's Make America Grunge Again

[Agota]

http://www.jergovic.com/sumnjivo-lice/trump-gradane-oslobada-od-pismenosti/

[Aco Popara Zver]

Гдје је Јерговић нашао то за менструацију и протјеривање америчких муслимана, први пут чујем.

[Meho Krljic]

Twist, Tramp je bio u svima nama sve vreme!!!!!!!


Professor who's correctly called every presidential election since 1984 predicts Trump will win 

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

i


  AI system finds Trump will win the White House and is more popular than Obama in 2008 

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

i


  Trump spikes 30% in one prediction market after FBI letter on new Clinton-related emails 

Donald Trump spiked more than 30 percent (Unknown: TRUMP.16) in one prediction market, following Friday's news that the FBI is reviewing new emails related to Hillary Clinton 's personal email server. She gained back some points after initially dropping 10 percent in the same market.
Contract at Predict It track the market's chances of a particular candidate winning the presidential election next month. As Trump's contract rose and was trading at 26 cents, the Democratic presidential nominee's Predict It contract (Unknown: CLINTON.16) traded lower at 77 cents.

FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to lawmakers Friday to supplement his previous testimony on the investigation related to Clinton's emails.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation," Comey said. "I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation," he added.

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

[Aco Popara Zver]

Дони, издржи!

[Truman]

Ja sam pre dva meseca sanjao Hilari i rekla mi je da ce pobediti. Dzaba vam naucni sistemi. Polje Akashe je reklo - Klinton!

[Aco Popara Zver]

[Meho Krljic]

Krekd:

A Blow-By-Blow Account Of The Trump Campaign Disaster

[Meho Krljic]

Dobro, Krekd radi za šta je plaćen, jelte. A evo sad nešto kontra toga:

Professor who's correctly called every presidential election since 1984 predicts Trump will win

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

[Aco Popara Zver]

Krekd:

A Blow-By-Blow Account Of The Trump Campaign Disaster

Никад боље систематизован списак разлога зашто Трамп МОРА да постане президент!

Заборавили су да кажу да личи на Картмена!

[mac]

Posle četiri godine Trampa:

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

[Aco Popara Zver]

Не знам јел тачно, ал је трампитачно!

[Meho Krljic]

Čak i sam tekst priznaje da su ovo neke slabe veze. Dobar pokušaj, ali...


   Reports detail Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia 

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

[Meho Krljic]

Ko hoće malo detaljniju diskusiju o ovome iz prethodnog posta, komentari na slešdotu su dosta korisni da bi se videlo koliko sve to u stvari verovatno nema veze ni sa čim:


https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/11/01/019251/computer-scientists-believe-a-trump-server-was-communicating-with-a-russian-bank


Ali s druge strane, videti kako je Guglov Eric Schmidt pre dve godine napravio nacrt Hilarine kampanje u kome bi se koristila Guglova ekspertiza u prikupljanju podataka o ljudima da im se kandidatkinja umili:
Google's Schmidt drew up draft plan for Clinton in 2014

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Meho Krljic]

This is what could happen to the stock market if Donald Trump wins

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

[lilit]

trenutno mi najjače udara na ganglije kategorizacija: glasaće za Trumpa ergo najgori su. ako su najgori, bili su i pre Trumpa. takođe, to što Trump privlači takve samo može da se okarakteriše kao strateški pametan potez jer bi glasali za ko zna koga, on računa da tim glasovima pobedi. uostalom, tim glasovima je Republikance naterao da ga prihvate kao njihovog kandidata.

ono što mislim da će se desiti je da će onog Anthony Wienera neko da suicide (česta sudbina onih koji su izneverili Klintonove) uskoro. još ako budu imali lepo oproštajno pismo tipa "ne mogu više da živim sa svojim gresima, ukrao sam fajlove od Ume a da ona nije znala, postavljao sam dick pics on social media, loš sam ovo ono, zbogom svete, Uma i Hillary su zlato."

[дејан]

готово је! лилит је прешла на конспираси дарк сајд!

[Aco Popara Zver]

Прочитах неђе да је неки лик у мурики у аутобусу реко да подржава Трампа и неко му просуо зубе. Лудло.

Иначе, Ћирјаковић је причао како је у Њујорку куповао качкете и шоље мејк мурика грејт аген, и продавац се мрштио хаха

Тај Винер је тотални вин, реално Трамп убио пет мува једним ударцем, ем Клинтонова и даље сере у мејловима, ем је сад окружена манијацима

[lilit]

готово је! лилит је прешла на конспираси дарк сајд!

ma ne znaš muke moje s kolegama na poslu a i sa familijom u USA. bog te mazo.
crtica: "nekim ljudima su toliko isprani mozgovi da oni ne vide kakvo je tramp zlo i kako će amerika da propadne ako on bude predsednik".
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
pa kad krenu da pričaju kako je sve nekad bilo divno dok nije došao Tramp i kad im kažeš kako recimo ne uzimaju u obzir banke koje su ojadile narod a niko nije završio u zatvoru, pa kako je količina novca koja je otišla bankama tokom bailouta zapanjujuća a sve su to novci od poreza koji su mogli biti iskorišćeni za puteve, škole, zadržavanje radnih mesta itd. - oni te optuže da si komunista! aaaaaa.
mislim, ja i jesam, nije sporno , al brate.

a kad im pomeneš faking 16 800 000 000 000 DOLARA ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/#45e883853723 ... oni kažu da hilari lepše priča od trampa i da je tramp seksista.

moguće da puno previđam al neće li više doći i proći taj 8/9. novembar

[lilit]

hm, danas mi ceo dan u duhu konspirasija

ovaj čovek ima impresivnu biografiju glede svog rada blizu vrha američke administracije dok su divovi hodali zemljom:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik

i onda, pre tri dana izbacio ovaj video. hm, hm. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5kvWSz5LM

[Agota]

PODRŽAVAM I OBOŽAVAM!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2M2_Z_plk

[Meho Krljic]

Nije ni Trampu lako:


   Secret Service rushes Donald Trump off stage at rally 


RENO, Nev. — Donald Trump was abruptly brought off the stage by Secret Service in the middle of a Saturday night rally when an unidentified man apparently tried to rush the stage.
Multiple witnesses near the front of the stage told reporters that they believed that the man had a gun, but the claim could not be confirmed by Yahoo News. The Secret Service said no weapon was found.
Trump had paused his stump speech to call out a protester when several Secret Service agents suddenly rushed to him and grabbed him off the stage. Chaos ensued as the crowd began to hurry away from the stage. Some moved back toward a barricaded area where the press corps was set up and began screaming at them.
"Why don't you cover this!" a man screamed as reporters stood on their chairs with cameras, trying to get a better look. "Liars!"
As rally attendees began to fearfully race for the exits, Trump aides rushed to the candidate's traveling press corps and ordered them to immediately head to the motorcade.
 

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

https://t.co/7fTJ3N3MQN pic.twitter.com/Hm7CRdFDTU
— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 6, 2016

Reporters ran through the crowd. Heavily armed police officers with machine guns were seen escorting a man backstage. They declined to comment to reporters about the incident.
Trump's traveling press corps was initially rushed toward the motorcade, amid word from the campaign that the candidate would not return to the stage. But about seven minutes after the incident began, Trump's entrance song — "God Bless the USA" — suddenly boomed throughout the convention hall and reporters hurried back in the room, where the candidate retook the stage.
"No one ever said it would be easy for us," Trump said, thanking the Secret Service. And then he returned to his usual stump speech.
 

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

https://t.co/xeNxna6aa6 pic.twitter.com/qV7HLVBAo6
— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 6, 2016

After the rally, Trump released a statement thanking law enforcement officers. "I also want to thank the many thousands of people present for their unwavering and unbelievable support. Nothing will stop us – we will make America great again!" he said.
This was not the first time Secret Service have rushed to protect the Republican nominee at a campaign rally. In March, Trump was surrounded by agents after a man suddenly headed to the stage at an event in Ohio. The man, 22-year-old Thomas Dimassimo, was blocked before he ever reached Trump and was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. Trump claimed the man was tied to ISIS, but experts dismissed the assertion.




Mada se ne da.


Trump Bashes Obama for 'Screaming' at Protester (He Wasn't) 

Donald Trump tore into President Obama for yelling at a protester during a rally in support of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
Only problem...Obama was defending the protester's right to speak out.
"He was talking to the protester screaming at him," Trump said. "If I spoke the way Obama spoke to that protester, they would say "he became unhinged.'"

President Obama Defends Trump Protester at Clinton Rally

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

[Meho Krljic]

Ima i ovo:


   Donald Trump's Child-Rape Accuser Drops Lawsuit After Receiving Threats

[Aco Popara Zver]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/04/no-john-podesta-didnt-drink-bodily-fluids-at-a-secret-satanist-dinner/

[mac]

U drugim vestima:

Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to global warming (seriously)

[Aco Popara Zver]

Нормално, шта ја кажем, Трамп нас води у комунизам!

[Ugly MF]

Jebte, ovi izbori su tolko sranje, usrali epizodu Z-Nation sa tim,,,,ali su srali po Trampu, ne po Klitorki....

[ridiculus]

Većina pisaca je protiv Trampa, kao i Holivud. Možda ne toliko za Hilari, koliko protiv Trampa.

[Meho Krljic]

https://youtu.be/CBH_QW3Y6rE

[Aco Popara Zver]

Фредрик Џејмсон двосмислен о Трампу!

http://www.criticatac.ro/lefteast/fredric-jameson-fascism-not-yet-there/

[Aco Popara Zver]

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5aupnh/breaking_i_believe_i_have_connected_a_convicted/

[Truman]

Većina pisaca je protiv Trampa, kao i Holivud. Možda ne toliko za Hilari, koliko protiv Trampa.

Intelektualci su protiv Trampa, ko pametan bi glasao za njega?

[mac]

Pametan niko, ali neko mudar? Ko zna...

[Aco Popara Zver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4vHSiotAFA&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Поклоните се!

[tomat]

Aphex Twin, na temu izbora

http://youtu.be/pysu0dICxy0

[Truman]

Pametan niko, ali neko mudar? Ko zna...

Tek mudar ne bi. Ako misliš suprotno da čujem.

[tomat]

Pa, eno ga Žižek gore, nije bez vraga to što priča.

[Aco Popara Zver]

Вотафак из дис?

http://www.blic.rs/vesti/svet/vrhovni-sud-sad-odbacio-tuzbu-o-trampovom-zastrasivanju/b87nnfd

Све у свему, баш га бибере пред изборе

[Aco Popara Zver]

[Aco Popara Zver]

Скренута ми је пажња да данас, сем за предсједника, западна обала (9 држава) гласа и за легализацију марихуане.

Трамп и вутра истог дана, можел боље?

[ridiculus]

A šta ako ti kažem da se u Kaliforniji danas glasa i za zakon o obaveznoj upotrebi kondoma u svakom pornografskom video-materijalu? [emoji38]

[Aco Popara Zver]

Манијаче!

[lilit]

http://xkcd.com/1756/