AMERIKA

[Crvene_brigade]

Je li na čelu Amerike luđak?

Sve je više dokaza da nije pri sebi.

Osim optužbi za “ludilo” u smislu mentalne nestabilnosti, sve je duža lista bizarnih ispada koji kod dijela kritičara otvaraju i pitanje njegova mogućeg propadanja...

Opširnije na: https://www.index.hr/mobile/vijesti/cla ... ajnovije_m

[pici]

Nakon Senata
Predstavnički dom Kongresa odbio ograničiti Trumpovo korištenje vojske u Iranu, za usvajanje nedostajao jedan glas

Ovi republikancu su teške KKK naci seronje

[tovarish]

Da. Ne samo robu, nego se osjeti pad u kanadskom turizmu.

Znači Kanađani uporni. Svaka im čast.

Turizam jedina grana privrede u DC-u koja je imala bolje rezultate u 2025. nego u 2024.

Malo drugaciji turisti doduse

Garant oni iz Montane, Indiane, Teksasa, Alabame i ostalih Bible belt pripizdina.

[GandalfSivi]

Izvrnuh se sa stolice

[Tito_i_Partija]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 623722007/

Exclusive: Pentagon ramps up planning for possible military ops in Cuba

[GandalfSivi]

Znate sta vam je ciniti…

Pokusavam ukljuciti @ADL i @CAIRNational u ovu pricu, pa ne bilo vam zahmetile ako odete prokomentarisati da ih tagujete…

Hvala.

[banjaluka078]

Onaj crv što mu je jeo mozak je bio povelik, izgleda.

[Crvene_brigade]

Novi poraz Trumpove zločinačke MAGA(reće) sekte…

[Truba]

hoce li taj berni vise u mirovinu

cim sam procitao racial znam da je izrael umjesan i da je taj novi izabrani placenik jedne BI zemlje

kad krenu birati america first ljude i istinske domoljube onda mozemo ocekivati promjene (manje bombi po neprijateljima izraela)

[DebelinJoe]

hoce li taj berni vise u mirovinu

cim sam procitao racial znam da je izrael umjesan i da je taj novi izabrani placenik jedne BI zemlje

kad krenu birati america first ljude i istinske domoljube onda mozemo ocekivati promjene (manje bombi po neprijateljima izraela)

Bernie je američka verzija Raifa Dizdarevića.

[Truba]

pa hićo je o tome priĆo kad je ukinuo višestranačje
koji je smisao demokracije i izbora kada se nista ne mijenja (bombe i dalje padaju po neprijateljima izraela)


neko je izračunao da su ameri ubili 38 milijuna ljudi...dodaš kraljicu viktoriju i onog belgijskog kralja imamo 100 milijuna ljudi..u rangu komunista

toga nema u udzbenicima suptilno da se krompir razbolio i nije se imalo sto jesti

[sinuhe]

Gdje je Ralph Nader? Kakav je to bio borac za malog poštenog čovjeka.

[Truba]

dje njega nadje zar je jos ziv

[sinuhe]

Ima 92 godine i još uvijek zna šta nije u redu sa Amerikom. Kaže impičment

Ralph Nader and Bruce Fein Present: Expert Legal Symposium on Impeachment and the Meaning of “Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

Wednesday April 8th, 2026

[vee-jay]

Jedina nada za svijet je neki gradjanski rat u Americi

[omar little]

proslo 16 godina, ali neke stvari se ne mijenjaju.

The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
Published February 23, 2010 11:24AM (EST)

Rockefeller Not Inclined To Support Reconciliation For The Public Plan

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .

“I don’t think the timing of it is very good,” the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. “I’m probably not going to vote for that” . . . In making his sentiment known, Rockefeller becomes perhaps the most unexpected skeptic of the public-option-via-reconciliation route. The Senator was a huge booster of a government run insurance option during the legislation drafting process this past year.

In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can’t do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn’t have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does; it’s who they are. They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

Basically, this is how things have progressed:

Progressives: We want a public option!

Democrats/WH: We agree with you totally! Unfortunately, while we have 50 votes for it, we just don’t have 60, so we can’t have it. Gosh darn that filibuster rule.

Progressives: But you can use reconciliation like Bush did so often, and then you only need 50 votes.

Filbuster reform advocates/Obama loyalists: Hey progressives, don’t be stupid! Be pragmatic. It’s not realistic or Serious to use reconciliation to pass health care reform. None of this their fault. It’s the fault of the filibuster. The White House wishes so badly that it could pass all these great progressive bills, but they’re powerless, and they just can’t get 60 votes to do it.

[Month later]

Progressives: Hey, great! Now that you’re going to pass the bill through reconciliation after all, you can include the public option that both you and we love, because you only need 50 votes, and you’ve said all year you have that!

Democrats/WH: No. We don’t have 50 votes for that (look at Jay Rockefeller). Besides, it’s not the right time for the public option. The public option only polls at 65%, so it might make our health care bill — which polls at 35% — unpopular. Also, the public option and reconciliation are too partisan, so we’re going to go ahead and pass our industry-approved bill instead . . . on a strict party line vote.

This is why, although I basically agree with filibuster reform advocates, I am extremely skeptical that it would change much, because Democrats would then just concoct ways to lack 50 votes rather than 60 votes — just like they did here. Ezra Klein, who is generally quite supportive of the White House perspective, reported last week on something rather amazing: Democratic Senators found themselves in a bind, because they pretended all year to vigorously support the public option but had the 60-vote excuse for not enacting it. But now that Democrats will likely use the 50-vote reconciliation process, how could they (and the White House) possibly justify not including the public option? So what did they do? They pretended in public to “demand” that the public option be included via reconciliation with a letter that many of them signed (and thus placate their base: see, we really are for it!), while conspiring in private with the White House (which expressed ”sharp resistance” to the public option) to make sure it wouldn’t really happen.

The only thing I wonder about is whether Washington Democrats are baffled about the extreme “enthusiasm gap” between Democratic and Republican voters, which very well could cause them to lose control of Congress this year. By “enthusiasm gap,” it is meant that the very people who worked so hard in 2006 and 2008 to ensure that Democrats became empowered are now indifferent — apathetic — about whether they keep it. Even as crazed and extremist as the GOP is, is it remotely possible that the Democratic establishment fails to understand not only why this “enthusiasm gap” exists, but also why it’s completely justifiable?

UPDATE: I didn’t intend to make an argument here one way or the other about the desirability of the public option, but was merely highlighting the game Democrats play in general. But for those interested in that question, it has always seemed clear to me that — no matter where one falls on the ideological spectrum (including conservatives and libertarians) — once the Government is going to mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance, it is preferable to provide an option to purchase a public plan rather than forcing everyone to buy from the private health insurance industry. On both policy and political grounds, a public-option-free mandate seems distastrous for Democrats.

https://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

[harisl]

Juce na autoputu, drzava Njujork, nigdje nikoga u "brzoj traci", svi na 65 milja/sat, stedimo benzin na posao i nazad, ljudi slikaju prosjecnu potrosnju pa se hvale na poslu. Kad imas dnevno da vozis 100, 150 km, dobro se osjeti. Dio puta je uz oranice, oni traktori sto mozes proci ispod njih oru- ko ce platiti taj dizel, hoce li nam farmeri, koji su vec na samom rubu propasti oprostiti 50% vece cijene nafte i djubriva? Nisam optimista, hrana ce vjerovatno poskupiti, nije moguce 50%, ali 10-20% hoce sigurno, a plata porasla 3%... I nikada se te cijene vise nece vratiti skroz nazad.
Ako je vec morao, rat je trebao poceti 1. januara iza praznika i zavrsiti u februaru.

[muha_sa]

Juce na autoputu, drzava Njujork, nigdje nikoga u "brzoj traci", svi na 65 milja/sat, stedimo benzin na posao i nazad, ljudi slikaju prosjecnu potrosnju pa se hvale na poslu. Kad imas dnevno da vozis 100, 150 km, dobro se osjeti. Dio puta je uz oranice, oni traktori sto mozes proci ispod njih oru- ko ce platiti taj dizel, hoce li nam farmeri, koji su vec na samom rubu propasti oprostiti 50% vece cijene nafte i djubriva? Nisam optimista, hrana ce vjerovatno poskupiti, nije moguce 50%, ali 10-20% hoce sigurno, a plata porasla 3%... I nikada se te cijene vise nece vratiti skroz nazad.
Ako je vec morao, rat je trebao poceti 1. januara iza praznika i zavrsiti u februaru.

Izdržite--uz vas sam

[Jack Be Nimble]

Jucer 102km voznje, 41m/galonu..kada te vjetar gura sve je moguce

[omar little]

The Iran war’s fertilizer shock is hammering American farmers, and 70% can’t afford what they need for this year’s growing season

With the planting season ending in six weeks, skyrocketing fertilizer prices are forcing farmers into an impossible choice: cut back and lose crop yield or stay the course and lose money.

A survey published Tuesday of 5,700 farmers conducted by the American Farm Bureau Federation shows that around 70% of farmers are unable to afford all the fertilizer they need, while nearly six in 10 said their finances have worsened owing to the rising cost of both fertilizer and fuel.

The new data comes as the Iran war has strangled the global supply chain as Iran exerts its control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of global fertilizer shipments flowed before the war. While more than 20 commercial ships passed through the strait over the past several days—an improvement from earlier this month when Iran essentially shut down the strait—it’s unclear whether the flow of ships will improve as the war drags on well nearing its seventh week, despite a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran signed last week, and a potential extension on the way.

As a result, prices for three major fertilizers farmers use (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) have all increased by double digits, according to Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at financial services firm StoneX Group.

Farmers struggle as fertilizer prices rise
These rising fertilizer prices are taking a toll on farmers who for years have struggled with low commodity prices for two major crops grown in the U.S., corn and soybeans, which have fallen 40% and 37%, respectively, from their highs in 2022. As of this week, the average price of corn was hovering at $4.15 per bushel down from a high of $6.86 a bushel in 2022. The average price of soybeans was $10.30 per bushel, down from a high of about $16.40 in 2022, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.

The decision to cut back on fertilizer is weighing most on farmers in the South, where only 19% bought fertilizer ahead of time, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation report. The crops these farmers grow—cotton, rice, corn, soybean, and peanuts—rely heavily on added nutrients, which leaves them most at risk when fertilizer prices increase, the report claimed.

Farmers’ limited time before planting season will soon end
The clock is ticking. These farmers have only until the middle of May when planting season ends to decide whether they will scale back on their fertilizer use—which in the long run could lead to lower crop yields—or absorb the elevated costs and potentially lose money on their harvest. Otherwise, some farmers may even choose to sit out the season and potentially add debt through borrowing to make ends meet, Bryan Hansel, chief revenue officer at regenerative agriculture company Holganix, told Fortune.

“This is heart-wrenching for farmers to decide, ‘Do I lose money? Or do I cut fertilizer? Or, like, what do I do?’” he said.

To reduce farmers’ demand on fertilizer, one of the best options may be regenerative farming, said Hansel, whose company sells a product, Bio 800+, which helps build up the microbiome of topsoil.

Farmers’ overreliance on fertilizers
Decades of American farmers’ overreliance on both fertilizers and quick chemical solutions like pesticides and herbicides have slowly chipped away at soil health for decades. A February report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that every year, U.S. farmers apply between 30% and 50% more synthetic nitrogen fertilizer than their crops need. These fertilizers cost farmers an estimated $35.8 billion in 2023, according to the USDA.

Heavy fertilizer use has trapped farmers in a vicious cycle. Constantly using more fertilizer than crops require degrades the soil’s natural microbiome, making soil less productive over time, which requires farmers to use more fertilizer to compensate. Reducing fertilizer use would increase crop yields and cut costs for farmers, the study claimed.

Yet farmers have been hesitant to switch to regenerative farming techniques that, among other adjustments, include putting a stop to over-tilling, which can cause damage to soil structure. Farmers can also plant cover crops, such as grasses or legumes, or rotate the crops grown in each field yearly, which can improve nutrients and organic matter in soil.

But because these methods often take years to start showing effects—and because American farmers have relied on fertilizers to enable steady crop yields for so long—some are hesitant to sway from the norm, Hansel said.

Rising fertilizer prices may be changing the equation: Demand for Holganix’s Bio 800+, which serves as a sort of probiotic for topsoil, has doubled compared with last year, Hansel said, partly because it can help reduce fertilizer needs in a shorter time compared with other regenerative farming methods.

While most farms use at least one regenerative farming method, such as reducing tilling, only about 1.5% of the more than 300 million acres dedicated to row crops in the U.S. are farmed fully regeneratively, according to Regenerative Farmers of America.

Much of the reason why can be explained by the fact that for regenerative farming to work, farmers have to reduce the amount of fertilizer they use, a distressing change for some given the common belief reducing fertilizer brings lower crop yields, Hansel said.

However, if fertilizer costs continue to rise, farmers may have no better alternative.

“Nature is no longer on our side, helping us raise these crops,” Hansel said. “It’s chemistry that … has raised these crops. We need to reverse that.”

fortune.com/2026/04/16/iran-war-fertilizer-prices-skyrocketing-economy-agriculture-american-farmers-donald-trump/

[melac]

Jucer 102km voznje, 41m/galonu..kada te vjetar gura sve je moguce

u picku materina sta je 41m/galonu?

[harisl]

Juce na autoputu, drzava Njujork, nigdje nikoga u "brzoj traci", svi na 65 milja/sat, stedimo benzin na posao i nazad, ljudi slikaju prosjecnu potrosnju pa se hvale na poslu. Kad imas dnevno da vozis 100, 150 km, dobro se osjeti. Dio puta je uz oranice, oni traktori sto mozes proci ispod njih oru- ko ce platiti taj dizel, hoce li nam farmeri, koji su vec na samom rubu propasti oprostiti 50% vece cijene nafte i djubriva? Nisam optimista, hrana ce vjerovatno poskupiti, nije moguce 50%, ali 10-20% hoce sigurno, a plata porasla 3%... I nikada se te cijene vise nece vratiti skroz nazad.
Ako je vec morao, rat je trebao poceti 1. januara iza praznika i zavrsiti u februaru.

Izdržite--uz vas sam

Hvala
Ma nije to, objasnjavao sam slikovito zasto se rat morao brzo zavrsiti, idu "midterm elections" mora se malo ispeglati situacija, inace mrka kapa ovoj administraciji...

[harisl]

Jucer 102km voznje, 41m/galonu..kada te vjetar gura sve je moguce

Eih, meni je to nedostizno. Licni rekord mi je 31 milja po galonu (7.6 l/ 100 km) od juce. Ima jedan do mene, Rus, isti auto, samo sto je noviji, kaze 37 m/gal, ali svi znamo da laze...

[Jack Be Nimble]

Jucer 102km voznje, 41m/galonu..kada te vjetar gura sve je moguce

u picku materina sta je 41m/galonu?

5.74l / 100km

[melac]

Jucer 102km voznje, 41m/galonu..kada te vjetar gura sve je moguce

u picku materina sta je 41m/galonu?

5.74l / 100km

A to bi onda bilo 1 galon za 41 milju ili sta?