Donald J Trump - Predsjednik USA All About

[dale cooper]

Taj isti Sanders nije mogao iz vise pokusaja da pobjedi predizbore.

I za predizbore i za izbore treba lova. Sanders nije imao izbora osim da vodi grassroots kampanju koja u današnje vrijeme superbogatih
donora ima slabe šanse da se progura. I ono ranije što kažeš, Amerika je odavno postala okrenuta nadesno, i čim spomeneš riječ socijalist
ili welfare state okarakterišu te kao komunistu. Kao i uvijek...do ljudi je.

Sanders je imao itekako dovoljan exposure jos 2016-e, a kamoli 2020-e. Potrebne su pare, da, ali ne odlucuju one sve. A nije bukvalno da Sanders nije imao ni za sta.

Upravo, do ljudi je. A ljudi u Americi vole kapitalizam.

Nije mrzak ni ovima u Evropi, samo što Amerikanci kapitalizam vide na jedan jako uzak i specifičan način.

[jeza u ledja]

Ako ce popravljati kao sto su popravljali u Bidenovom mandatu, onda bolje da i ne dolaze na vlast. Sjecam se da su tada najozbiljnije ubjedjivali narod kako inflacija nije tako strasna jer je uglavnom koncentrisana na nebitne stvari kao sto su gorivo i hrana ( ) i predlagali da ljudi kojima je skup benzin kupe elektricna auta ( ).

Stranka apsolutno odrodjena od svog glasackog tijela, uz par svijetlih tacaka kao sto su Mamdani i Sanders.

Pa ako ništa ne promjene u svojoj politici i načinu na koji funkcioniraju onda neće ni doći na vlast. Imam osjećaj da im se sva taktika i svodi
u nadu da će Trump toliko zajebati stvari da će narod glasati za bilo koga drugoga. Nema tu još nikakve ozbiljne samokritike i analize šta bi
to oni mogli promijeniti politički da privuku glasače.

Doci ce po inerciji, isto kao sto su po inerciji dosli na vlast 2008. kad je ekonomija kolapsirala, pa nisu znali sta da rade sa potpunom kontrolom na svim nivoima vlasti.

I onda je 2 godine poslije bio najveci val glasova udesno (Tea Party), a 8 godina poslije dosao Trump. Danas 16 godina poslije je sve sto je Obama napravio (sto doduse nije puno), unisteno i razvaljeno.

[banjaluka078]

[geralt]

Pa ako ništa ne promjene u svojoj politici i načinu na koji funkcioniraju onda neće ni doći na vlast. Imam osjećaj da im se sva taktika i svodi
u nadu da će Trump toliko zajebati stvari da će narod glasati za bilo koga drugoga. Nema tu još nikakve ozbiljne samokritike i analize šta bi
to oni mogli promijeniti politički da privuku glasače.

Doci ce po inerciji, isto kao sto su po inerciji dosli na vlast 2008. kad je ekonomija kolapsirala, pa nisu znali sta da rade sa potpunom kontrolom na svim nivoima vlasti.

I onda je 2 godine poslije bio najveci val glasova udesno (Tea Party), a 8 godina poslije dosao Trump. Danas 16 godina poslije je sve sto je Obama napravio (sto doduse nije puno), unisteno i razvaljeno.

Da, otisao je val glasova udesno jer se nista nije promijenilo.

Politicari demokratske stranke i njihovi donatori ne zele nista sustinski mijenjati u ekonomiji i vanjskoj politici u odnosu na period Bush/Obama/Trump 1/Biden, jer im je dobro. Promjene koje zele su ili drustvene (abortus, LGBTQ prava) ili kozmeticke (malo veci minimalac, malo manje vojnih intervencija, ostalo ne diraj nista).

Glasaci zele promjenu jer im nije dobro. Ne slazu se medjusobno oko toga kakvu tacno promjenu zele.

[omar little]

dok god demokratska stranka i njeni nadobudni glasaci gledaju na ljude kao skart, iste te glasace koji su prije samo cetiri godine glasali za bidena i prije toga za obamu, niti imaju sanse, niti im je cilj, bilo sta mijenjati. demokratska stranka kategoricki odbija preuzeti bilo kakvu odgovornost za bilo sta. status quo ili smrt svega. edit: pardon. i ,naravno, izrael.




Why is the Democratic party hiding its 2024 autopsy report? | Norman Solomon

The Democratic National Committee’s decision to block the release of its own autopsy report on the 2024 election is stunning but not surprising. Averse to unpleasant candor, the Democrats’ governing body functions more like a PR firm than a political organization devoted to grassroots capacities for winning elections. The party’s leaders pose as immune from critique, even if they have led the party to disaster.

Unwilling to depart from the party establishment’s culture of conformity, the DNC has remained under the Biden-Harris shadow throughout 2025. Release of an official autopsy might have shown that party leaders actually want to encourage public discourse about the missteps that enabled Donald Trump to become president again. But the DNC is proceeding as if there’s nothing to be learned from the tragic debacle of 2024 that its leaders don’t already know – and they don’t need to share their purported wisdom with anyone else.

In early December, the DNC featured Kamala Harris as the keynote speaker at the semi-annual meeting of its 450 members. Predictably, her formulaic speech received a standing ovation. No matter that in recent months, on the long book tour promoting her campaign memoir, Harris was notably incapable of responding with any coherence to questions about why as vice-president she claimed that Biden was fit to run for president in 2024 or, for that matter, to be president for another four years.

The DNC’s refusal to release its autopsy is in keeping with a pattern of evading hard truths that led virtually every elected Democrat in Washington to go along with President Biden’s insistence on running for re-election until his awful debate performance in late June 2024. Meanwhile, big majorities of Democratic voters were continually telling pollsters that they didn’t want Biden to run again.

An autopsy report with any value would not dodge such matters. Nor would it elide sensible questions about how much money went to insider consultants and advertising contractors as the Harris campaign managed to spend $1.5bn during the hallowed 107 days of her presidential campaign last year. An autopsy might also probe the moral and political consequences of nominee Harris continuing to toe the Biden line for huge arms shipments to Israel while its military continued to slaughter Palestinian civilians in Gaza; during the campaign and afterward, polling showed that she would have gained a substantial boost of votes by calling for an arms embargo.

Months ago, news accounts surfaced that release of the DNC’s autopsy would be postponed until after the November election. The draft autopsy reportedly avoided casting blame on Biden or Harris or other Democratic leaders. But as it turned out, even such a tepid autopsy would be too hot for the DNC leadership to handle.

In mid-December, when DNC chair Ken Martin announced the decision to withhold the autopsy from public view, his rationale reeked of elitism, perfumed as pragmatism: “Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.” The klix message to the party’s base – including millions of loyal volunteers and small donors – was that they couldn’t be trusted to know what party chiefs have learned from a report based on hundreds of interviews with people in all 50 states. At the DNC, the political calculus is that the basis for sharing such information should be need-to-know, and ordinary Democrats don’t need to.

Martin’s explanation for hiding the autopsy – his claim that winning in the future would be hampered by the “distraction” of assessing the past – is backwards. Public candor about why Democrats lost the White House is not a “distraction” – it’s vital for disrupting the party’s repeated compulsion of making the same mistakes all over again.

A former chair of the progressive caucus in the California Democratic party, Amar Shergill, was cogent when mentioned Martin in this acid X post : “Bury the report that will help Democrats understand how and why they lost.”

The DNC is now replicating the kind of tacit disdain for rank-and-file Democrats that fueled the 2024 catastrophe. Despite the lopsided poll numbers against Biden running for re-election, the attitude from the Biden White House and congressional Democrats was: we know much better than Democratic voters what they should want.

Days before the DNC announcement about ditching its autopsy, my colleagues at RootsAction released our own in-depth autopsy, assessing what went wrong in 2024 and how to make crucial changes for the midterms and 2028. Written by journalist Christopher D Cook, the autopsy (“How Democrats Lost the White House”) focuses on these key points:

Voter disenchantment: Losing 6.8 million voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 proved pivotal in the close 2024 election. Harris’s inability to mobilize those pro-Biden voters was a massive failure.

Biden’s betrayal: Biden’s stubborn decision to seek re-election, and his refusal to step aside until very late in the process, robbed Democratic voters of open primaries and undermined Democrats’ chances.

Abandoning the working-class base: With millions of Americans feeling desperate because of rising costs, the Harris campaign lost this Democratic base by bowing to corporate donors’ interests and failing to challenge the impact of corporate greed in escalating inflation.

The Gaza effect: Harris lost many voters – especially young people, Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans, with sizable consequences in Michigan and other swing states – due to her refusal to indicate any openness to shifting her policy position on Israel and Palestine.

Losing young voters: Extensive evidence shows a huge drop-off in Democratic support among young voters aged 18-29.

Some of the bleakest findings in the RootsAction autopsy about the 2024 election involve similarities with the findings in the RootsAction autopsy about the 2016 election, “The Democratic Party in Crisis”. On matters such as the party standard-bearer’s support for corporate power and militarism, as well as failure to connect with young people and the working class while pandering to mythical troves of moderate Republican voters, the names Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris could often be swapped with complete accuracy.

As public klix of the Democratic party’s recent history continues to be off the table at the DNC, one factor is its chair’s view that vigorous intraparty debate is unseemly. Before becoming DNC chair, Martin had told me on two occasions (once in 2019 and more politely early this year when he was making calls before the chair election) that he doesn’t think Democrats should be criticizing each other in public.

The future of the Democratic party is crucial because – given the structural realities of the American political system – this party is the only electoral vehicle for ending Republican control of the federal government. Anger and disgust with the Democratic leadership is fully valid. Yet strong progressives like representatives Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee and Ro Khanna would not be in Congress if they hadn’t run as “Democrats”.

While ousting the Republicans from power is essential, progressives need to be fighting the Democratic party’s power structure that keeps impeding progress on that momentous task. Blockage of the official autopsy is symptomatic of the DNC’s deference to party leaders who engineered the disastrous 2024 presidential campaign.

Martin won the DNC chair job almost a year ago without the support of Democratic heavyweights like Senator Chuck Schumer and representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi, who all backed Martin’s main opponent. Martin is not a favorite of many old-guard officials in the upper reaches of the party, and an autopsy with even a modicum of criticism in their direction might have sparked some kind of revolt. Martin opted to avoid any such problem by deep-sixing the autopsy.

“It’s about protecting people who fucked up,” a DNC member told me. “Ken is trying to hold the DNC together. The decision about the autopsy is about trying to keep peace within the party.”

But a party unable to publicly examine its own failings is unlikely to climb out of the rut that proved so helpful to Donald Trump in 2024.

edit 2: link https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... 4-election

[dale cooper]

dok god demokratska stranka i njeni nadobudni glasaci gledaju na ljude kao skart, iste te glasace koji su prije samo cetiri godine glasali za bidena i prije toga za obamu, niti imaju sanse, niti im je cilj, bilo sta mijenjati. demokratska stranka kategoricki odbija preuzeti bilo kakvu odgovornost za bilo sta. status quo ili smrt svega. edit: pardon. i ,naravno, izrael.




Why is the Democratic party hiding its 2024 autopsy report? | Norman Solomon

The Democratic National Committee’s decision to block the release of its own autopsy report on the 2024 election is stunning but not surprising. Averse to unpleasant candor, the Democrats’ governing body functions more like a PR firm than a political organization devoted to grassroots capacities for winning elections. The party’s leaders pose as immune from critique, even if they have led the party to disaster.

Unwilling to depart from the party establishment’s culture of conformity, the DNC has remained under the Biden-Harris shadow throughout 2025. Release of an official autopsy might have shown that party leaders actually want to encourage public discourse about the missteps that enabled Donald Trump to become president again. But the DNC is proceeding as if there’s nothing to be learned from the tragic debacle of 2024 that its leaders don’t already know – and they don’t need to share their purported wisdom with anyone else.

In early December, the DNC featured Kamala Harris as the keynote speaker at the semi-annual meeting of its 450 members. Predictably, her formulaic speech received a standing ovation. No matter that in recent months, on the long book tour promoting her campaign memoir, Harris was notably incapable of responding with any coherence to questions about why as vice-president she claimed that Biden was fit to run for president in 2024 or, for that matter, to be president for another four years.

The DNC’s refusal to release its autopsy is in keeping with a pattern of evading hard truths that led virtually every elected Democrat in Washington to go along with President Biden’s insistence on running for re-election until his awful debate performance in late June 2024. Meanwhile, big majorities of Democratic voters were continually telling pollsters that they didn’t want Biden to run again.

An autopsy report with any value would not dodge such matters. Nor would it elide sensible questions about how much money went to insider consultants and advertising contractors as the Harris campaign managed to spend $1.5bn during the hallowed 107 days of her presidential campaign last year. An autopsy might also probe the moral and political consequences of nominee Harris continuing to toe the Biden line for huge arms shipments to Israel while its military continued to slaughter Palestinian civilians in Gaza; during the campaign and afterward, polling showed that she would have gained a substantial boost of votes by calling for an arms embargo.

Months ago, news accounts surfaced that release of the DNC’s autopsy would be postponed until after the November election. The draft autopsy reportedly avoided casting blame on Biden or Harris or other Democratic leaders. But as it turned out, even such a tepid autopsy would be too hot for the DNC leadership to handle.

In mid-December, when DNC chair Ken Martin announced the decision to withhold the autopsy from public view, his rationale reeked of elitism, perfumed as pragmatism: “Here’s our North Star: does this help us win? If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.” The klix message to the party’s base – including millions of loyal volunteers and small donors – was that they couldn’t be trusted to know what party chiefs have learned from a report based on hundreds of interviews with people in all 50 states. At the DNC, the political calculus is that the basis for sharing such information should be need-to-know, and ordinary Democrats don’t need to.

Martin’s explanation for hiding the autopsy – his claim that winning in the future would be hampered by the “distraction” of assessing the past – is backwards. Public candor about why Democrats lost the White House is not a “distraction” – it’s vital for disrupting the party’s repeated compulsion of making the same mistakes all over again.

A former chair of the progressive caucus in the California Democratic party, Amar Shergill, was cogent when mentioned Martin in this acid X post : “Bury the report that will help Democrats understand how and why they lost.”

The DNC is now replicating the kind of tacit disdain for rank-and-file Democrats that fueled the 2024 catastrophe. Despite the lopsided poll numbers against Biden running for re-election, the attitude from the Biden White House and congressional Democrats was: we know much better than Democratic voters what they should want.

Days before the DNC announcement about ditching its autopsy, my colleagues at RootsAction released our own in-depth autopsy, assessing what went wrong in 2024 and how to make crucial changes for the midterms and 2028. Written by journalist Christopher D Cook, the autopsy (“How Democrats Lost the White House”) focuses on these key points:

Voter disenchantment: Losing 6.8 million voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 proved pivotal in the close 2024 election. Harris’s inability to mobilize those pro-Biden voters was a massive failure.

Biden’s betrayal: Biden’s stubborn decision to seek re-election, and his refusal to step aside until very late in the process, robbed Democratic voters of open primaries and undermined Democrats’ chances.

Abandoning the working-class base: With millions of Americans feeling desperate because of rising costs, the Harris campaign lost this Democratic base by bowing to corporate donors’ interests and failing to challenge the impact of corporate greed in escalating inflation.

The Gaza effect: Harris lost many voters – especially young people, Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans, with sizable consequences in Michigan and other swing states – due to her refusal to indicate any openness to shifting her policy position on Israel and Palestine.

Losing young voters: Extensive evidence shows a huge drop-off in Democratic support among young voters aged 18-29.

Some of the bleakest findings in the RootsAction autopsy about the 2024 election involve similarities with the findings in the RootsAction autopsy about the 2016 election, “The Democratic Party in Crisis”. On matters such as the party standard-bearer’s support for corporate power and militarism, as well as failure to connect with young people and the working class while pandering to mythical troves of moderate Republican voters, the names Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris could often be swapped with complete accuracy.

As public klix of the Democratic party’s recent history continues to be off the table at the DNC, one factor is its chair’s view that vigorous intraparty debate is unseemly. Before becoming DNC chair, Martin had told me on two occasions (once in 2019 and more politely early this year when he was making calls before the chair election) that he doesn’t think Democrats should be criticizing each other in public.

The future of the Democratic party is crucial because – given the structural realities of the American political system – this party is the only electoral vehicle for ending Republican control of the federal government. Anger and disgust with the Democratic leadership is fully valid. Yet strong progressives like representatives Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Summer Lee and Ro Khanna would not be in Congress if they hadn’t run as “Democrats”.

While ousting the Republicans from power is essential, progressives need to be fighting the Democratic party’s power structure that keeps impeding progress on that momentous task. Blockage of the official autopsy is symptomatic of the DNC’s deference to party leaders who engineered the disastrous 2024 presidential campaign.

Martin won the DNC chair job almost a year ago without the support of Democratic heavyweights like Senator Chuck Schumer and representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi, who all backed Martin’s main opponent. Martin is not a favorite of many old-guard officials in the upper reaches of the party, and an autopsy with even a modicum of criticism in their direction might have sparked some kind of revolt. Martin opted to avoid any such problem by deep-sixing the autopsy.

“It’s about protecting people who fucked up,” a DNC member told me. “Ken is trying to hold the DNC together. The decision about the autopsy is about trying to keep peace within the party.”

But a party unable to publicly examine its own failings is unlikely to climb out of the rut that proved so helpful to Donald Trump in 2024.

Dobar članak.

[Chmoljo]

Dobar članak.

Da, i adresira neke od stvari koje smo pisali.

Sta mislis sto je DNC izgubila glasacko tijelo od 19-29 godina?

Ti glasovi su izgubljeni na mimovima a koji se uavnom odnose na "potlacenost" hetero muskarca. Ta grupa jos nije u stanju da razluci da kada se Bill Burr sprda sa woke debilima, da i ta sprdnja ima svoje limite i od strane samog autora.

Mamdani je dokaz da se moze komunicirati i sa mladima koji su progresivni a ne samo putem one nazi mim zabe.

A i ovo sto je geralt napisao

Da, otisao je val glasova udesno jer se nista nije promijenilo.

Politicari demokratske stranke i njihovi donatori ne zele nista sustinski mijenjati u ekonomiji i vanjskoj politici u odnosu na period Bush/Obama/Trump 1/Biden, jer im je dobro. Promjene koje zele su ili drustvene (abortus, LGBTQ prava) ili kozmeticke (malo veci minimalac, malo manje vojnih intervencija, ostalo ne diraj nista).

Glasaci zele promjenu jer im nije dobro. Ne slazu se medjusobno oko toga kakvu tacno promjenu zele.

Na tragu je ovoga.

Al i kad se daju prava ide se u sitna crevca. Ljude trigeruje pljeskanje, ali ih ne trigeruju zdravstvena zastita, gun control i studentski dugovi.

Hocu rec, i kad se daju prava, opet ce baviti sranjima i glupostima kojima ce se iritirati neke druge grupe, dok ce izvor nezadovoljstva kod svih biti lijepo zaobidjen i usutkan organizovanim izdasnim lobiranjem.

Dok se bavilo kozmetikom, glasovi su otisli trumpu. Da li swing ili prosto neizlaskom, ali to je tako.

Mozemo i ko jez i rec, krivi su glupi glasaci. Pa naravno da jesu. Ali ako pametni ne urade sve da zaustave glupane onda jebat nas. I tamo i ovdje. Ja ne rekoh da treba ignorisati probleme lgbtq populacije, ili pusiti pricu desnicara o njima. Ali to ne treba biti jedina vidljiva promjena.

Problem je kad i oni koji bi trebali zastupati one pametnije nisu nista bolji. Ko DNC trenutno.

[jeza u ledja]

Doci ce po inerciji, isto kao sto su po inerciji dosli na vlast 2008. kad je ekonomija kolapsirala, pa nisu znali sta da rade sa potpunom kontrolom na svim nivoima vlasti.

I onda je 2 godine poslije bio najveci val glasova udesno (Tea Party), a 8 godina poslije dosao Trump. Danas 16 godina poslije je sve sto je Obama napravio (sto doduse nije puno), unisteno i razvaljeno.

Da, otisao je val glasova udesno jer se nista nije promijenilo.

Politicari demokratske stranke i njihovi donatori ne zele nista sustinski mijenjati u ekonomiji i vanjskoj politici u odnosu na period Bush/Obama/Trump 1/Biden, jer im je dobro. Promjene koje zele su ili drustvene (abortus, LGBTQ prava) ili kozmeticke (malo veci minimalac, malo manje vojnih intervencija, ostalo ne diraj nista).

Glasaci zele promjenu jer im nije dobro. Ne slazu se medjusobno oko toga kakvu tacno promjenu zele.

Ne. Upravo suprotno. Tea Party je dosao na vlast upravo kao odgovor na pokusaje Demokrata i na kraju uspjehu, da izglasaju kakav takav ACA. Vanjska politika je tu bila nebitna, kao sto je uglavnom nebitna, osim ako se ne ratuje. A Obama nije ulijetao ni u kakve nove sukobe u tom periodu.

Najbitniji komad papir potpisan u zadnjih 25 godina a koji je pomogao workin-class ljudima je upravo taj ACA, sa svim svojim manjkavostima. Republikanci su proveli 10+ godina pokusavajuci ga ukinuti.

[Point.]

Ja bizarne presice, ovaj frajer je puko ko kokica i vrijeme je sa psihijatrije

[banjaluka078]

Budala.

[dale cooper]

Dobar članak.

Da, i adresira neke od stvari koje smo pisali.

Sta mislis sto je DNC izgubila glasacko tijelo od 19-29 godina?

Ti glasovi su izgubljeni na mimovima a koji se uavnom odnose na "potlacenost" hetero muskarca. Ta grupa jos nije u stanju da razluci da kada se Bill Burr sprda sa woke debilima, da i ta sprdnja ima svoje limite i od strane samog autora.

Mamdani je dokaz da se moze komunicirati i sa mladima koji su progresivni a ne samo putem one nazi mim zabe.

A i ovo sto je geralt napisao

Da, otisao je val glasova udesno jer se nista nije promijenilo.

Politicari demokratske stranke i njihovi donatori ne zele nista sustinski mijenjati u ekonomiji i vanjskoj politici u odnosu na period Bush/Obama/Trump 1/Biden, jer im je dobro. Promjene koje zele su ili drustvene (abortus, LGBTQ prava) ili kozmeticke (malo veci minimalac, malo manje vojnih intervencija, ostalo ne diraj nista).

Glasaci zele promjenu jer im nije dobro. Ne slazu se medjusobno oko toga kakvu tacno promjenu zele.

Na tragu je ovoga.

Al i kad se daju prava ide se u sitna crevca. Ljude trigeruje pljeskanje, ali ih ne trigeruju zdravstvena zastita, gun control i studentski dugovi.

Hocu rec, i kad se daju prava, opet ce baviti sranjima i glupostima kojima ce se iritirati neke druge grupe, dok ce izvor nezadovoljstva kod svih biti lijepo zaobidjen i usutkan organizovanim izdasnim lobiranjem.

Dok se bavilo kozmetikom, glasovi su otisli trumpu. Da li swing ili prosto neizlaskom, ali to je tako.

Mozemo i ko jez i rec, krivi su glupi glasaci. Pa naravno da jesu. Ali ako pametni ne urade sve da zaustave glupane onda jebat nas. I tamo i ovdje. Ja ne rekoh da treba ignorisati probleme lgbtq populacije, ili pusiti pricu desnicara o njima. Ali to ne treba biti jedina vidljiva promjena.

Problem je kad i oni koji bi trebali zastupati one pametnije nisu nista bolji. Ko DNC trenutno.

Naravno da ne treba, ne vidim gdje sam ja to i tvrdio.

Ali priča i nije započela oko primarnih razloga izbornog poraza demokrata.

[dale cooper]

Budala.

Kako lijepo od njega, kako...woke.

[banjaluka078]

Evo i duži klip...on to kaže da razgovara sa iranskim gejevima?!

[dale cooper]

Evo i duži klip...on to kaže da razgovara sa iranskim gejevima?!

Ja ne znam kako bilo ko inteligentan može stajati kraj njega i slušati ovo, a ne zapitati se koji kurac je ovaj čovjek još uvijek na ovoj poziciji.
Mislim, znam kako, ali govorim retorički.

[dembele]

Ja ne znam imaju li Ameri neki ured, ljude koji procjenjuju mentalno zdravlje svog predsjednika? Pa mislim koliko daleko može ići ova šizofrena budala a da ga ovi ne diraju? Pa jbt Ramo Isak u odnosu na ovoga dođe kao rahmetli Rusmir Mahmutćehajić.

[jeza u ledja]

Budala.

Kao sto rekoh na pocetku posljednje rasprave:

U Trumpovoj vladi vise gejeva nego bilo kad. Glavni sponzor mu je gej. Cuj gejevi krivi za Trumpa.

Gejevi i lezbe su davno prezvakana prica na Zapadu.

Ja samo zelim reci da je zapadno drustvo poodmaklo od tog "problematisanja" gejeva na nacin na koji se ovdje predstavlja. Ljudi uglavnom nemaju problem sa njima.

A na ovaj komentar:

Ispada da su gayevi i wokeri krivi za tVumpa ... u principu jesu. Ja sam isto primjetio da su naglo ekstremno poceli da artikulisu svoje pokrete kroz film, serije, stripove, parade, live emisije itd itd.

[splinter]

[jeza u ledja]

Dobar članak.

Da, i adresira neke od stvari koje smo pisali.

Sta mislis sto je DNC izgubila glasacko tijelo od 19-29 godina?

Nije ga bas izgubila, samo se smanjio postotak.

A glavni razlog za to je ipak ekonomska perspektiva, koja se pogotovo ogleda u mogucnostima za mlade.

Ja bih htio postaviti jedan drugi clanak, koji zorno prikazuje jedan od razloga zasto je tesko napraviti promjene u stranci:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/04/us/v ... crats.html

Some Voters Say Congress Is Too Old. These Black Democrats Aren’t Leaving.

As older members of Congress head for the exits amid growing pressure for fresh faces in the Democratic Party, some of the most seasoned Black lawmakers are resisting retirement.


By Robert Jimison
Reporting from the Capitol

April 4, 2026

Representative David Scott, the 80-year-old Democrat from Georgia, has not spoken on the House floor for more than two years. But when it came time in March to file for re-election for what would be his 13th term, he was among the first in line at the State Capitol, sitting in a wheelchair maneuvered by an aide.

Representative Al Green, 78, Democrat of Texas, generated headlines last year when he rose from his seat and shook his cane as he heckled President Trump during an address to a joint session of Congress. He, too, is seeking re-election after more than two decades in Congress.

And though the former top two Democratic leaders in the House, Representatives Nancy Pelosi of California and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, both octogenarians, are leaving Congress after this year, their longtime No. 3, Representative James E. Clyburn, the South Carolina power broker, is running for his 18th term at age 85.

Across the country, many aging Democratic members of Congress are stepping aside, heeding calls for generational change that have grown only louder since the party revolt that ultimately prompted President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to drop his re-election bid in 2024 at age 81.

But among the party’s most senior Black lawmakers, a different pattern has taken hold. Many are staying put and defiantly rejecting calls to retire, complicating the age debate and frustrating some activists who are eager for a younger crop of leaders to rise. Some of the lawmakers have argued that in a nation that denied Black citizens the right to vote or represent their communities for generations, they should not be forced to relinquish the seniority and power they have amassed in Congress simply because of the date on their birth certificate.

“When did Steny Hoyer come to Congress?” Mr. Clyburn said during a recent interview. “He came 10 or 12 years before I did. When did Nancy Pelosi come to Congress? She came six years before I did. So why am I held to a different standard?”

The disconnect gets at a bigger and more complicated debate hanging over American politics: Who holds power in this country, and who has to give it up?

Many Black lawmakers can trace their arrival on Capitol Hill to the early 1990s, when they were elected after redistricting changes tied to the Voting Rights Act created more opportunities for minority communities to be represented by a person of color, a path that had long been blocked. With a new census showing a diversifying country, President Bill Clinton and others built a multiracial coalition that would become the bedrock of Democratic politics for a generation.

“We all got elected the same year in 1992, because it was impossible for us to get elected in the South before that,” Mr. Clyburn said.

Decades later, he is far from the only powerful Black Democrat who has resisted the pressure to step down. In Mississippi, Representative Bennie Thompson, the 78-year-old ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, defeated a primary challenger more than 30 years younger; he is now on track to win re-election after more than three decades in Congress. Representative Maxine Waters, at 87 the senior Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, is running for a 19th term representing her district in South Los Angeles. In Texas, Mr. Green is fighting to keep his seat in a tight contest with a fellow Democratic member of Congress less than half his age.

“These are folks who, when they were younger, it was damn near impossible to get here because of racism in this country,” said Representative Maxwell Alejandro Frost, a Democrat from Florida who is Black and, at 29, the youngest member of Congress. “And then when they got here, they were told, ‘Wait your turn.’ They waited their turn, and now people are saying, ‘Get the hell out.’”

But those agitating for generational change argue that congressional Democrats’ longstanding policy of rewarding seniority — one that the Congressional Black Caucus has pressed to adhere to as a way of ensuring and preserving diversity in the party ranks — has crowded out capable candidates who are the future of the party.

“There is an incredible bench of young Black elected leaders with experience and community ties who are ready to rise,” said Amanda Litman, the leader of Run for Something, a progressive group that pushes young Democrats to run for office. “The idea that the current C.B.C. members are the only ones who could meet the moment is just not grounded in reality.”

She argued that ignoring calls for change risked alienating younger voters, particularly voters of color who expressed growing distrust of the Democratic Party.

“We are seeing in poll after poll that young voters, especially young voters of color, do not trust the Democratic Party as an institution — and these leaders represent that institution,” she said. “They may have had to fight their way to get into it, but at this moment, they are part of it. And young voters are saying, ‘We don’t trust you to deliver for us.’”

Several post-mortems of the 2024 election highlighted how Republicans managed to build a far more diverse coalition than ever before and bested Democrats in motivating younger members of their base to vote. And there is evidence that voters see members of Congress as too old: A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that overwhelming majorities of both political parties — 82 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Democrats — favored maximum age limits for federal elected officials.

Ms. Waters and Mr. Green, who have easily won re-election year after year, both said their consistent victories were proof that voters had no issue with their age.

“I always believe that good, honest, hard work will get you the respect that you deserve,” Ms. Waters said in an interview. “I don’t care whether you are young or whether you are old. Your demonstrated care and concern for public policy shows up.”

Mr. Green said forcing out older members ignored the will of the people.

“I think that you pass the torch by allowing the voters to make a decision,” Mr. Green said in an interview. “Voters ultimately hold the torch.”

But beating an incumbent is difficult, and some senior Black Democrats have opted to relinquish their power, acknowledging that doing so might be the only way a younger candidate could succeed.

Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman, 81, the first Black woman to represent New Jersey in Congress, announced in November that she would retire at the end of her sixth term, saying it was “time to pass the torch to the next leader who will continue leading this charge.”

Representative Danny K. Davis, the 84-year-old Democrat from Illinois who is retiring after three decades in Congress, said it was a “good time to try and usher in and help bring in new leadership.”

Those staying insist that supporting the next generation does not require their stepping down. Mr. Green pointed to younger staff members he had mentored, while Ms. Waters said she worked closely with emerging local leaders. Mr. Clyburn has a fellowship program aimed at developing the next generation of civic leaders from South Carolina.

They also argue they are still up to the job. Ms. Waters cited her continued activism around the country, including her appearance onstage last weekend at a “No Kings” rally in Los Angeles. Mr. Clyburn, who has spent his years in Washington and South Carolina establishing himself as a party kingmaker, remains a central figure for Democrats, traveling across the country fund-raising for candidates and drawing a crowd to his annual fish fry, where local and national Democrats court voters with stump speeches and their efforts to keep up with the Electric Slide on the dance floor.

“I do believe I’m very well equipped and healthy enough to move into the next term,” Mr. Clyburn said when he announced his re-election bid last month, adding that he planned to run a “vigorous” campaign.

But younger challengers are seeking to tap into a profound voter sentiment in favor of turning over a new leaf. In a statement announcing her campaign to challenge Ms. Waters, Myla Rahman, 53, said “the status quo isn’t working” and bemoaned the “same leadership” being sent to Washington time after time while “costs rise and families fall behind.”

Some Black lawmakers who are in poorer health have faced far sharper questions about their capacity to continue to serve.

Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, the 88-year-old Democrat and longtime nonvoting delegate for Washington, D.C., resisted calls to retire for more than a year before relenting after it became apparent her health challenges had sapped her ability to function in Congress. She is still serving, but is not seeking re-election.

Mr. Scott’s frail condition has become a focal point in his crowded primary. Once a forceful presence in both Washington and Atlanta, he has faced years of questions about his health and has not delivered a floor speech since December 2023. In December 2024, he was ousted from the influential role he held as the senior Democrat on the Agriculture Committee.

One of his primary challengers revealed that Mr. Scott did not vote in the 2024 presidential election and that he had missed multiple local elections.

Mr. Scott declined requests for comment and did not respond to questions as he left the House chamber on a recent Friday with an aide who hurriedly guided his wheelchair into a nearby elevator.

“We are being disserved by an absent member of Congress who refuses to communicate and cannot do the job anymore,” Everton Blair, one of the Democrats running against Mr. Scott, said in an interview.

Mr. Blair said he still respected the work of some of the older Black leaders in the party, but he ultimately believed new voices were needed in Washington.

“We deserve intergenerational space at the table, and right now, it’s just disproportionately skewed toward one generation that has stayed in power for too long,” he said.

As he dives into his 18th re-election campaign, Mr. Clyburn is making the case that he is uniquely suited to the current political moment. His long career has been defined by issues such as voting rights and anti-discrimination, which are newly relevant as the Trump administration presses for voting restrictions and the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

“The same kinds of things they did in the 1870s to deny votes to African Americans is what they’re trying to do today,” Mr. Clyburn said. “We have got to start concentrating on what we can do to stop this deterioration taking place in our society, and stop arguing about how old or how young somebody is. It’s just a little bit silly to me.”

Koliko je progresivnih Demokrata uspjelo napraviti nesto u ruralnim krajevima? Ko ce otici u Deep South i reci ovim metuzalemima znate vrijeme je za nove ljude?
Ljudi koji su uvjereni da je americka ljevica ultra-progresivna samo treba neko da joj to objasni, ne znaju ko cini Demokratsku stranku i odakle dolaze. Najvece zlo u stranci je bio Manchin bez ikakve ideje ko ce ga zamjeniti u WV, ali je zato Fetterman imao Sandersov endorsement.

Osladi se ljudima fotelja. Da poredas sve nove ljude i ostavih ih na vlasti 20 godina, to bi se ukiselilo sa korporativnim donacijama. Cast izuzecima.

[Danguba]

Vi bas otisli u sitna crevca zasto su Republikanci ovaj put pobijedili a zanemarujete cionisticku masineriju koja desetljecima djeluje, pozicionira se, finansira i postavlja svoje izvodjace radova.
Ovo je kulminacija.
Prosli mandat je bilo zagrijavanje a sada stvarno ''rade''.
Ko pita prosjecnog Amerikanca za sve ovo sto haosman radi. Vise se pitaju u Izraela nego u Americi.

Trump ce stati kada mu cionisti kazu ''dosta'' a nece jos dugo jer im se ukazala prilika koja se nece dugo ponoviti da americkim murcem mlare komsiluk.

[JohnnyS]

Židovi krivi što su sve te desetine milijuna zaokružile Trumpa. A ne suprugu Židova Kamalu Harris. Točno ovdje ljudi ne žive u heliocentričnom nego judeocentričnom modelu svemira, sve im se oko Židova vrti.

[amidzazeher]

Hoce li ga vise iko ”skloniti” u PM

[Danguba]

Židovi krivi što su sve te desetine milijuna zaokružile Trumpa. A ne suprugu Židova Kamalu Harris. Točno ovdje ljudi ne žive u heliocentričnom nego judeocentričnom modelu svemira, sve im se oko Židova vrti.

Pa kako tumacis ovo ispunjavanje zelja?

[dembele]

Hoce li ga vise iko ”skloniti” u PM

Izgleda niko da Azraila, kako stvari stoje.

[JohnnyS]

Židovi krivi što su sve te desetine milijuna zaokružile Trumpa. A ne suprugu Židova Kamalu Harris. Točno ovdje ljudi ne žive u heliocentričnom nego judeocentričnom modelu svemira, sve im se oko Židova vrti.

Pa kako tumacis ovo ispunjavanje zelja?

Imaju ga snimljenog kako je silovao djevojčice. Narod ga je htio, nema to veze sa Židovima.

[Danguba]

Židovi krivi što su sve te desetine milijuna zaokružile Trumpa. A ne suprugu Židova Kamalu Harris. Točno ovdje ljudi ne žive u heliocentričnom nego judeocentričnom modelu svemira, sve im se oko Židova vrti.

Pa kako tumacis ovo ispunjavanje zelja?

Imaju ga snimljenog kako je silovao djevojčice. Narod ga je htio, nema to veze sa Židovima.

Pa ko je finansirao svu tu kampanju, smisljene ''atentate'', pozicioniranje svojih ljudi, male donacije za odredjene grupacije i udruzenja...
Epstein je njihov proizvod isto kao i pejdzeri.
Ljudi smisljaju planove mnogo prije nas obicnih smrtnika a na nama je samo da konstatujemo stanje. Ako se vratimo unazad tek onda shvatimo sve te podlosti koje su osmislili.