Donald J Trump - Predsjednik USA All About

[JovicSA]

Da vam na brzinu objasnim jedan projekat USAIDa u Prijedoru, tj Kozarcu.

2001 godine je renovirana cesta izmedju Kozarca i Trnopolja u duzini 10km, USAID finansirao.
Prijedorputevi prosli na tenderu i renovirali cestu, USAID nije prihvatio radove jer debljina asfalta i podloge nije bila u skladu sa ugovorom, Prijedorputevi o svok trosku morali cestu dovesti u standard koji je zahtjevan.
25 godina kasnije, jedina cesta bez kolotraza, rupa i ostecenja.

Sta ovim hocu reci, nisu dozvolili ugradjivanje i fuseraj.

Mnoge druge rekonstrukcije cesta kasnije su bile finansirane od strane vlasti, sve te ceste su propadale par godina nakon rekonstrukcije.

USAID sta god da je pravio tj finansirao, to je uradjeno transparentno i kako treba, od povratnickih kuca i nadalje.

Uz USAID, jedino je svedska SIDA radila kako treba.

Povratnicke kuce koje su placenje od strane turske TIKAe i jos nekih europskih fondova su sfuserene, a mnoge danas nisu uslovne za zivot, jer nije bilo stroge kontrole kao kod SIDAe i USAIDa.

Ma zna se to, to samo ovi MAGA kultisti i SDA kadirovci ne kontaju.

[jeza u ledja]

To je manje-vise Trudeau vec najavio kad je ono rekao da Kanada smanjuje broj migranata.

Sta ako su oligarsi rekli da povuce rucnu kad su vidjeli berzu jutros? Onda Trump zovne Justina i ovu Meksikanku i kaze dajte mi castan izlaz, nek ispadne da sam nesto dobio Nothingburger

pa moguće je i to, ali smatram da sa bulijima treba onako kako su počeli, odmah ih skloniti sa polica i ćao

ovako se pristaje na tupavi fentanil narativ

Trump je predator. Ima iza sebe najjacu ekonomiju na svijetu i moze da radi sta hoce. Ako mu odgovaras jezicinom on ce ti spucati tarife.

I Trudeau i Sheinbaum odgovaraju svojim glasacima i svojim koroporativnim lobijima. Bilo kakvo prekidanje lanca pa makar i na par dana moze biti izuzetno stetno po njih. Ekonomije tri zemlje su toliko danas uvezane da poremecaji u lancu proizvodnje stvaraju lancanu reakciju na mnoge druge stvari.

Neko napisa u uvozu automobila..., pa jedna komponenta za vozilo moze preci 5 puta granicu dok se nesto napravi. Zamisli da svaki put placas taksu od 25%? To bi automatski znacilo potpuni kolaps u nekim industrijama. Meksiko se nakon zahladjenja odnosa sa Kinom drasticno vise uvezao sa americkom (a i sa kineskom) ekonomijom. I Kinezi su skontali da mogu preko Meksika lakse plasirati neke stvari ovdje. Meksicka ekononomija je pravo zivnula zadnjih desetak godina. (zato ih je npr proporcionalno mnogo manje na ilegalnim prelazima u odnosu na zemlje juznije od njih). Zamisli da sad sve to kolabira preko noci? Neki dijelovi Kanade isto, bas citam clanak o Windsoru (koji je rupa preko puta Detroita). Posto sam tamo prolazio cesto znam koliko je i tamo zivnulo zadnjih desetak godina. No i tamo su poceli otvarati fabrike, praviti komponente, sve za americko trziste naravno.
Sve je to toliko uvezano, haman ko EU ekonomija, da bi tarife bile izrazito pogubne za njih.

Ne brinu se oni sta ce Amerika i kako ce Trump izgledati svojim glasacima. Njima je bitno sta ce njihova zemlja i ekonomija. (Trudeau je doduse svakako vec bivsi.) Ne brinu se oni sto je u Americi vec porasla cijena celika cisto zbog predvidjanja uticaja tarifa na americko trziste. Ne mogu oni kalkulisati sta ce Trump i kako ce na njega djelovati pritisak americkih korporacija i lobija. Nije na njima da rjesavaju americke unutarnje probleme, to je na Kongresu, sudovima i glasacima.

Sve to Trump zna i savrseno koristi za vlastitu promociju. Samo znaci blef. Tako je cijeli zivot - kad imas stotine miliona dolara ili najjacu ekonomiju iza sebe, tj. ledja, mozes blefirati koliko zelis. Kapital i moc koju je neko drugi stvarao on sad obilato trosi, jer mu se moze. Neko ce drugi to popravljati kad njega vise ne bude.

Zato kazem, rijec koja ce najbolje opisivati Trumpovo ponasanje u ovom mandatu je predator.

[Velkoski]

ma slažem se, ovo su više moje želje da se razbije status quo i prenemaganje, dosadno mi je

zanimljiv tekstić o narandži

“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig

[Truba]

kako mu lagano dolaze na noge dobro je forumaš primijetio
a što se događa ispod radara
kakve ponude

[Truba]

jutros slusam stotinjak katolika na grenlandu morao sam provjeriti

There are 50 registered Catholics and only approximately 4 native Greenlander Catholics out of a population of 57,000


57000 nakih luteranaca

njih dvoje a ja i babo sami


50 ateista

zvakom po 100000 i može ih kupiti

[jeza u ledja]

ma slažem se, ovo su više moje želje da se razbije status quo i prenemaganje, dosadno mi je

zanimljiv tekstić o narandži

“I’m going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don’t know, I’m an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of “The Art of the Deal,” a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you’ve read The Art of the Deal, or if you’ve followed Trump lately, you’ll know, even if you didn’t know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call “distributive bargaining.”

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you’re fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump’s world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don’t have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can’t demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren’t binary. China’s choices aren’t (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don’t buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you’re going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don’t have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won’t agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you’re going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn’t another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that’s just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here’s another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn’t even bringing checkers to a chess match. He’s bringing a quarter that he insists of flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.”

— David Honig

Fino objasnjeno, samo problem u ovoj racunici je sto je Trumpu bitan njegov vlastiti uspjeh. Drzavu ko jebe.

[Velkoski]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... mp/681558/

[pici]

Bas me interesira koko ce sa EU da se naglaba oko tarifa. Bit ce carina 25% na sve a onda koja zemlja ustukne, dobro došao u klub.

[Altsa]

Da vam na brzinu objasnim jedan projekat USAIDa u Prijedoru, tj Kozarcu.

2001 godine je renovirana cesta izmedju Kozarca i Trnopolja u duzini 10km, USAID finansirao.
Prijedorputevi prosli na tenderu i renovirali cestu, USAID nije prihvatio radove jer debljina asfalta i podloge nije bila u skladu sa ugovorom, Prijedorputevi o svok trosku morali cestu dovesti u standard koji je zahtjevan.
25 godina kasnije, jedina cesta bez kolotraza, rupa i ostecenja.

Sta ovim hocu reci, nisu dozvolili ugradjivanje i fuseraj.

Mnoge druge rekonstrukcije cesta kasnije su bile finansirane od strane vlasti, sve te ceste su propadale par godina nakon rekonstrukcije.

USAID sta god da je pravio tj finansirao, to je uradjeno transparentno i kako treba, od povratnickih kuca i nadalje.

Uz USAID, jedino je svedska SIDA radila kako treba.

Povratnicke kuce koje su placenje od strane turske TIKAe i jos nekih europskih fondova su sfuserene, a mnoge danas nisu uslovne za zivot, jer nije bilo stroge kontrole kao kod SIDAe i USAIDa.

Ma zna se to, to samo ovi MAGA kultisti i SDA kadirovci ne kontaju.

Ma USAID je u potpunosti pozitivna prica u BiH...grdne pare su oni davali i u rs ali nakon dodikovih debilizama su prekinuli saradnju s njima...ovi moroni iz sda i MAGA fanatici to ne mogu da shvate...tek ako ih ugase ce se vidjeti koja je bila dobit sa njima.

[pici]

USAID se nece ugasiti, preko toga amerika stvara uticaj u drzavama. To je koda si ugasio CIA. tVumpove fiks ideje za meketavce je da uradi to na drasičan način i onda odgodi ili preformuliše zadato obecanje. To se zove manipulatorski populizam. Jako drag pojam za desničarske i ljevičarske pizdeke. Uglavnom, sve se vrti oko novca i uticaj tj bogacenja istim.

[ultima_palabra]

To je manje-vise Trudeau vec najavio kad je ono rekao da Kanada smanjuje broj migranata.

Sta ako su oligarsi rekli da povuce rucnu kad su vidjeli berzu jutros? Onda Trump zovne Justina i ovu Meksikanku i kaze dajte mi castan izlaz, nek ispadne da sam nesto dobio Nothingburger

pa moguće je i to, ali smatram da sa bulijima treba onako kako su počeli, odmah ih skloniti sa polica i ćao

ovako se pristaje na tupavi fentanil narativ

Tesko je se s rogatim bosti, to mozes ako si Kina. Trump je lijen, povrsan i interesuju ga samo mediji, lakse je uvjeriti ga da je pobijedio.

[zilog]

[Digla_da_kreci]

Ne se zajebavati i dati otkaz. Mnogi ce se za glavu uhvatiti. Ni Trump ni Musk nemaju autoritet ni dati otkaz ni platiti severance…

Spoiler

Show

Friends,

I’m addressing this post to America’s 2.3 million federal employees.

(Perhaps you are one yourself or know someone who is.)

My message: Don’t accept Elon’s offer.

Yesterday, Musk — via people he’s planted in the Office of Personnel Management — sent an email to all 2.3 million of you, offering to pay you for eight months of work, through September 30, if you’ll resign from the government before February 6. Otherwise, you risk being furloughed (that is, not paid) or fired.

You know what this is about. Not slimming the federal workforce, but substituting Trump loyalists for people like you, who are working for the American public.

Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, said it out loud Tuesday on CNN: "The 2 million employees in the federal government are overwhelmingly left of center.” And now that Trump is elected, "it is essential for him to get control of government.”

But the fact is, neither Musk nor even Trump has legal authority to offer you eight months of pay if you’ll resign by February 6.

Your salaries are funded by the federal agencies and departments you work for, not by the Office of Personnel Management, not by Musk, and not by Trump.

None of them is authorized by Congress to move money from one agency or department to another without Congress’s approval. I know. I used to be a cabinet secretary.

Besides, the funding for your agency or department is guaranteed only through March 14, when the government is expected to shut down unless the debt ceiling is lifted. If not, any commitment for additional pay is worthless.

In fact, Musk (and Trump) are violating the law by agreeing to spend money that the administration doesn’t have. Congress could declare the entire offer illegal — which it is. Then where would you be?

May I also add that you shouldn’t trust Trump or Musk.

Trump has a long history of stiffing workers and contractors.

So, for that matter, does Musk. During the pandemic, Musk gave Tesla employees permission to remain at home if they didn’t feel comfortable reporting to the factory. Then he sent them termination notices alleging “failure to return to work.”

When he bought Twitter in 2022, Musk denied he wanted to lay off 75 percent of its staff (“No way I’m laying off 75 percent of them”) but then fired 80 percent of them (maybe that’s what he meant when he pledged not to fire 75 percent?)

In short, it’s a bum offer. Reject it.

By the way, thank you for your service.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Reich
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor

Opce ludilo je nastalo. Do kraja sedmice tw/remote agreements ce biti terminated. U ponedjeljak svi u office, a to ce tek biti kursfluk jer ni nemaju mjesta za sve i samo veci trosak stvaraju, uz to ce radnici sjediti fizicki u officu a i dalje raditi i imati sastanke online sa ekipom i klijentima iz drugih drzava. Oni koji su dalje od 50milja imaju u narednih par mjeseci to figure out a way back. Ili potpisi ovaj novi offer. Nece niko da potpise, ali bice neki maltene primorani, ljudi sa porodicama, kucom.. i onda, kao da gledam, nece im isplatiti severance pa ce padati tuzbe. Sve u svemu, katastrofa.

[muzicar_iz_parka]

Znaci ima i Amerika more beskorisnih budžetlija

[jeza u ledja]

Pun kurac vladinih stranica ne radi uopste. Nevezano za USAID ili bilo cime na sta se ovi zale.

Kakvi debili jbt.

[JovicSA]

Evo i Fadil iz zatvora likuje tbog USAID-a jadnik kaže oni su zlikovci...kakav debil i balijetina je Fadil, Kadirovac i grobar Bošnjaka sa politikom koju je zastupao. Fuj, fuj, fuj

USAID od 2020. do 2024. godine utrošio više od 400 miliona dolara za projekte u BiH

https://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/usaid-o ... /250204067

[GandalfSivi]

Dan 15, zombi apokalipsa. Pravimo spisak ljudi koje mozemo primiti kod nas dok se ne snadju, dogovaramo se k’o u ratu. Ne smijes vise ni nazvati nikoga, sve price gora od gore. Plus, u Costco-u vise nema jaja…

[MMM1977]

Znalo se da je Trump lud, da je Musk lud i da će biti svašta ali ipak svakim danom nadmaše sva očekivanja. Sjebat ce USA, sva savezništva po svijetu ali i cijeli svijet. Da bog sačuva.

Ruski igrači 1/1

[no_sekirli]

Ma cini se da vise galame nego rade. Uzimaju ove labilne drzave i politicare na trehu.

[Naslovnica]

Pa dobio je narandža i electoral i popular vote, većina će dobiti što su tražili, jel' tako?
Imaju mid terms, vidjećemo da li je na pravom putu ili ne.

[jeza u ledja]

Upravo tako, trazili ste gledajte.

[Isner]

Morate znati da i USAID i UNDP u BiH, kako sami za sebe kažu (XY puta prisustvovao kad su to govorili) odavno NISU VIŠE humanitarne nego RAZVOJNE agencije, ponavljam RAZVOJNE AGENCIJE.... Pod to RAZVOJNE strpane su i babe i žabe i kruške i jabuke a bgm i tikve..

U prilog tome, evo, nek neko navede jedan HUMANITARNI projekat ili program u zadnjih 5 godina a da nisu vakcine i da nije vezano za covid.. To su uglavnom demokratizacija društva, okrugli stolovi, panel diskusije, prava manjina, statistike, statistike, statistike...


Vezano za ratni i poslijeratni period i tu pomoć, kakva god da je bila, hvala im na tome, mnogi su preživjeli od toga.... Do skoro sam čuvao njihove najlone sa logom USAID koji su godinama stajali umjesto stakala koje su detonacije i geleri skršili...

[Truba]

Lost in the news of tariffs and deportations was the triumphant story of Trump rescuing 6 Americans held hostage by Venezuela.

These Americans were completely abandoned by the Biden administration, who hadn't even tried to negotiate for their release. Trump, however, sent an envoy headed by Ric Grenell, who offered practically NOTHING in return yet managed to secure their release anyways.

If you recall, Venezuelan President Maduro had devolved into a dictator with many in the world questioning the legitimacy of his rule. As such, the Biden administration pursued a policy of regime change by formally recognizing Maduro's political opponent as the "rightful" leader of Venezuela. This gesture didn't succeed in the slightest, but it DID convince Maduro that his life was threatened by Americans. He then jailed a handful of Americans on suspicion that they were spies sent to undermine his presidency.

By meeting with Maduro and asking him - not only to release the hostages - but to accept all of the illegal Venezuelan migrants being deported by the Trump administration, the U.S. was documenting that we now recognized Maduro as President. By appealing to his authority, it eased relations, and he agreed to both of our demands. Venezuela will - themselves - fly back hundreds of violent Venezuelan gang members. Additionally, Maduro also immediately released the 6 American hostages.

This was all achieved without the U.S. having to give a single thing in return. Not one dollar. Not one prisoner swap. Nothing. We just had to show up and talk to them. THAT'S how little effort the Biden administration put towards getting back our hostages.

The hostages arrived with black hoods over their heads, escorted by goons onto an airfield, completely unaware of any current events. They had no idea where they were, what was happening, where they were going, when their nightmare would end, or whether they were about to be executed. That's when Ric Grenell walked over to them, took the black hoods off their heads and said, "I'm an American diplomat sent here by President Donald Trump. I’m here to take you home, get on the plane."

The men broke down in tears, understandably, later explaining that their Venezuelan captors had routinely "pretended" to release them, just to torture them. They did this so many times that an additional 2 Americans scheduled to be released literally refused to play along, since they were convinced it was just another ruse. As such, those 2 Americans were sadly left in Venezuela. Perhaps a future Trump delegation can secure their release, but for now, we have another Trump success that simply came down to trying. His predecessor just didn't try... at all. Not even once. These Americans deserved better than that, and Biden deserves to be remembered as the lazy President who abandoned them.
_______________________/
Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/01/americas ... index.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o7t0ny3Fz4

[PreWiBa]

Samo idioti i budale, ili zle osobe mogu likovati što je USAID ugašen.

Hiljade ljudi širom Bosne i Hercegovine su profitirali od njihovih projekata, a najviše oni najugroženiji.

Naravno, bilo je i ugrađivanja svakakvih vrsta, i ljudi koji su svjesno iskorištavali tu kao i većinu drugih organizacija - Sanja Vlaisavljević je vjerovatno najpoznatiji primjer. No, to nije problem USAID-a, to je samo dokaz u kojoj mjeri je neki dio društva pokvaren. A i ti projekti u kojima učestvuju te fake organizacije čine tek manji dio izdvajanja za BiH.

A realno, gledano, i sama Amerika gubi radi ovoga. Da, troškovi u apsolutnim brojkama nisu mali, ali za državu poput SAD-a to je kikiriki. Istovremeno, preko svih tih projekata jačaš mehku moć svoje države, širiš svoj soft power, jeli, isto kao i preko filmova, glumaca, muzike...

MAGA-ovci su trenutno na putu da za ovo par godina sav taj uticaj unište. Da, možeš ići svugdje i siledžijski istjerat svoje, Amerika je to ipak, ali dugoročno ćeš SAD time napraviti zemljom protivnikom.
Jebote, ljudi sa Kanadom usrali, šta mislite kako će se to odraziti na evropu?

Ako ovako nastavi, vjerovatno će za 4 godine ljudima biti potpuno svejedno hoće li Kina ili Amerika biti glavni. I ne da onda nećemo kupovati Fordove i Chevrolete i koristiti Google, već ćemo i iz inata možda voziti svakako jeftinije Kineze i koristiti druge alternative.

[sinuhe]

U prilog tome, evo, nek neko navede jedan HUMANITARNI projekat ili program u zadnjih 5 godina a da nisu vakcine i da nije vezano za covid.. To su uglavnom demokratizacija društva, okrugli stolovi, panel diskusije, prava manjina, statistike, statistike, statistike...

O tome se uči u školama, pročita knjiga. Ne organizuju se radionice odraslim ljudima.