Donald J Trump - Predsjednik USA All About

[jeza u ledja]

Eto pa kazu nema globalnog zagrijavanja. U Skandinaviji ni snjega ni pingvina vise nema.

[Point.]

I ja sam mislio da ima pingvina u Skandinaviji. Dok nisam dosao vamo.

[jeza u ledja]

I ja sam mislio da ima pingvina u Skandinaviji. Dok nisam dosao vamo.

Pa to kad ti se znanje o svijetu svodilo na epizode Nadrealista.

[Fudo387]

Tužno je kako je Amerika retardirala u svokom pogledu u posljednih 17g, od Buša 2 pa na ovamo...

Bas u svakom pogledu?

[Point.]

I ja sam mislio da ima pingvina u Skandinaviji. Dok nisam dosao vamo.

Pa to kad ti se znanje o svijetu svodilo na epizode Nadrealista.

Stas, kad se vise pamtilo sta kaze Nele, Zenit i Djuro nego nastavnik u skoli.

[jeza u ledja]

Zna li ko kad su izbori u Alabami za senat?
Ako demsi uzmu e to ce vec biti nesto

To bi bilo ogromno iznenadjenje. U decembru su, mislim 12-i, ako sam dobro upamtio.

[L u c i f e r]

Tužno je kako je Amerika retardirala u svokom pogledu u posljednih 17g, od Buša 2 pa na ovamo...

Bas u svakom pogledu?

U svakom relevantnom: prava radnika, stanje srednje klase, duznicko ropstvo studenata, odnos kropnog kapital i ostatka drustva, retardacija politicke scene, krah vanjskopolitickog autoriteta, itd

[jeza u ledja]

Zna li ko kad su izbori u Alabami za senat?
Ako demsi uzmu e to ce vec biti nesto

To bi bilo ogromno iznenadjenje. U decembru su, mislim 12-i, ako sam dobro upamtio.

Vidjecemo imaju li konzervativci apetita za pedofiliju....

"Namjestili mu".
Inace ne pouzdam se u one koji se busaju tradicionalnim krscanskim vrijednostima. Vidjeli smo na primjeru zadnjih izbora ali i mnogih drugih u proslosti.

PS: Inace ima dobar clanak o Demsima i mogucnostima na sljedecim izborima u NYT, odo ti potrazit.

Evo https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/p ... ginia.html
Govore ono sto i ja. Tesko ce Dems preuzeti Kongres sljedece godine, a jedan od glavnih razloga je gerrymandering. VA je dokaz tome.

[jeza u ledja]

Ok evo i ja gledam, clanak, ali ne mogu se sa svim sloziti. Gerrymandering ce naravno pomoci repsima ali do neke mjere. U izborima za senat gerrymandering ne pomaze, ali opet gop kontrolise senat. I u stanju su ubaciti tea partijase ili nutcases poput Cruza.
Za demse je bolje da se fokusiraju na stvarne probleme a gerrymandering da tiho litigiraju po sudovima.
Gerrymandering jeste problem ali daleko od toga da je glavni problem koji demsi imaju.

Evo ima clanak i za tebe:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opin ... -2018.html


Govorimo konkretno o 2018-oj. Senat je takav kakav je i sljedece godine nema puno mjesta gdje D mogu profitirati (mozda AZ i NE), postoji prica i o TN. A nasuprot tome koliko shvatam ima hejbet drzava gdje mogu izgubiti mjesto. Stoga Senat iako je samo 4 razlike izgleda manje optimistican nego HoR gdje je razlika ja mislim 40+. A tu je problem sa gerrymandering.

Naravno da to nije jedini problem.

[jeza u ledja]

Ali da bi ti ovo razumio moras da se ostavis "grab the pussy" headlines i da prostudiras konkretne stvari koje je Trump obecavao pred izbore.

Eto vidis da ne znas sastaviti post bez licnih opaski. Stice se dojam da se ne mozes osloboditi tog nekog self righteous stava.

Da bi ti razumio ono sto ja govorim, morao bi da shvatis da neko ko preskace "grab the pussy" komentar i opet izabire tog lika za predsjednika IMA MENTALNI SKLOP MAGARCA. Taj MAGARAC ne moze da poveze da ono sto Trump govori nije ono sto ce on stvarno napraviti. Posto nije, onda to anulira sve i jednu stavku u politickoj agendi kandidata jer je ona suplja ko predsjednikova glava. Kada ti shvatis da nije poenta samo u poruci, vec prvenstveno u nacinu na koji se ta poruka prenosi, oblikuje i jos bitnije predstavniku koji tu poruku prenosi, onda ces shvatiti koliko je ogranicena moc konkretnih programa, a koliko su suplje rijeci mocne. Ja razdvajam pricu o tome sta bi trebalo uraditi politicki, od price ko bi to mogao uraditi, od price kako bi se to moglo postici izbornim procesom, do price kako bi se to moglo postici jednom kada se preuzme vlast. To su sve razlicite stavke, nekad u direktnoj koliziji jedna s drugom i samim tim u nacinu razmisljanja o njima. Ti to sve sklapas u jedno i poistovjecujes s drugim.

Inace prica o trendu vs aberaciji....ista prica se vrtila kad je izglasan Bush ponovo, ista prica se vrtila kad je pobijedio Obama, prvi i drugi put (kao demografska slika se mijenja, GOP gubi podlogu) i sada se zeli vrtjeti prica o novom trendu. Ako je trend nesto sto traje pola decenije, dobro.

Dems prije 40 godina je jedna sasvim druga stranka, koalicija mnogih struja, ukljucujuci onu rasisticke zaostavstine. To je neusporedivo sa situacijom danas i prica je potpuno deplasirana.

A naravno, nije problem samo u "grab them by the pussy" niti je to uopste bitno za neki razgovor. To je samo kap u moru cijelog spektra stvari. No eto izgleda tebi je najlakse napraviti neku pausalnu besmislenu konstataciju, koja ne vodi nicemu osim zakljucka da se tebi u stvari ne dijalog, vec bi da mi preach. Tako si isto nastupao i prije godinu dana. Od sve silne zelje da nesto dokazes nisi mogao shvatiti da imamo 95% ista razmisljanja i glasamo za istog covjeka. Valjda je to bitnije od cinjenice da pola zemlje glasa za lika koji je imbecil.
Nego hajde sad ti fino nadji nekog drugog da mu otvaras oci, odmori malo od mene.

Procenat glasackog tijela koji su glasali za Obamu i za Trumpa je 3.6%. Procenat ljudi koji su glasali za Romneyja pa onda za Clinton je 1.9%. To je razlika od 1.7%. Toliko price i brige oko 1.7% ljudi kojima je glavni razlog glasanja izgleda taj ko bolje supljira!

[jeza u ledja]

Rekoh ti da se ostavis tih exit polls. 1.7 % je puno ako se promatraju u pravom svjetlu, kao sto napisah u predhodnom postu.

Ne moras samo gledati exit polls (nego valjda treba po svom nahodjenju?), mozes gledati rezultate izbora - u kojim je Trump pobijedio sa minimalnim brojem glasova.

A za "grab the pussy", nista to nije licno niti kakva uvreda. Samo kazem malo slikovitije ono sto si i sam sad detaljnije elaborirao: bitno je nacin na koji se kandidat predstavlja. Samo sam ja to rekao krace i slikovitije

To pretpostavlja da sam ja debil pa ne vidim dalje od "grab the pussy". Zato sam ja napisao necemo dalje pricati ako ides pod pretpostavkom da sam ja debil.

Jez, problem je sto imas puno razlicitih ljudi. Imas ljudi kojima se to ne svidja ali glasaju ne kako se koji kandidat predstavi vec kako im se cini program svakog kandidata i procjena koliko taj kandidat moze uciniti. Da li je takav glasac sexista ili rasista? Za tebe jeste (ne stavljam ovo u usta, sam si napisao isto). A vidis takav stav je malo arogantan. Zasto moramo glasati za kandidate po vanjstini?

Na rasizam i ostale izme odgovaram odrijestio, ako ti to hoces nazvati arogancijom, so be it. Za mene drugog odgovora nema. I da, glasac koji je i pored toga glasao za Trumpa je seksista ili rasista, jer za mene nema razlike izmedju onog ko to ispoljava i onog ko to preskace, jer samim tim to omogucava. Kazem to zato sto je Trumpova retorika toliko prosta i ogoljena da ne mozes tvrditi da ne shvatas znacenje njegovih rijeci.

Problem zasto tea party, bannonites ii Trump imaju incicijativu u zadnjih 7 godina je upravo sto je elektorat skontao da slatkorjecivost i suplja kako je ti zoves ne pije vode vise. Ali supljak koji se do sada prosipao je bio supljak Busha, Obame, Hillary i upravo zato glasaju za Trumpa. Naravno da Trump ne moze da odradi ono sto je obecao, i stoga je i njegova shuplja, ali on je bar ukazao ispravno na mnogo problema u drustvu i ekonomiji koje mainstream ne zele potencirati.

Kao sto ti rekoh, demokratija smo. I narod je odlucio. A sad cekaj da li ce se aberacija popraviti ili ne.

Elektorat skontao da slatkorijecivost i suplja ne pije vode, ali je glasao za Trumpa koji prosipa supljak vise nego svi ostali zajedno? Nidze veze.

[jeza u ledja]

Rekoh ti da se ostavis tih exit polls. 1.7 % je puno ako se promatraju u pravom svjetlu, kao sto napisah u predhodnom postu.

Ne moras samo gledati exit polls (nego valjda treba po svom nahodjenju?), mozes gledati rezultate izbora - u kojim je Trump pobijedio sa minimalnim brojem glasova.

A za "grab the pussy", nista to nije licno niti kakva uvreda. Samo kazem malo slikovitije ono sto si i sam sad detaljnije elaborirao: bitno je nacin na koji se kandidat predstavlja. Samo sam ja to rekao krace i slikovitije

To pretpostavlja da sam ja debil pa ne vidim dalje od "grab the pussy". Zato sam ja napisao necemo dalje pricati ako ides pod pretpostavkom da sam ja debil.

Jez, problem je sto imas puno razlicitih ljudi. Imas ljudi kojima se to ne svidja ali glasaju ne kako se koji kandidat predstavi vec kako im se cini program svakog kandidata i procjena koliko taj kandidat moze uciniti. Da li je takav glasac sexista ili rasista? Za tebe jeste (ne stavljam ovo u usta, sam si napisao isto). A vidis takav stav je malo arogantan. Zasto moramo glasati za kandidate po vanjstini?

Na rasizam i ostale izme odgovaram odrijestio, ako ti to hoces nazvati arogancijom, so be it. Za mene drugog odgovora nema. I da, glasac koji je i pored toga glasao za Trumpa je seksista ili rasista, jer za mene nema razlike izmedju onog ko to ispoljava i onog ko to preskace, jer samim tim to omogucava. Kazem to zato sto je Trumpova retorika toliko prosta i ogoljena da ne mozes tvrditi da ne shvatas znacenje njegovih rijeci.

Problem zasto tea party, bannonites ii Trump imaju incicijativu u zadnjih 7 godina je upravo sto je elektorat skontao da slatkorjecivost i suplja kako je ti zoves ne pije vode vise. Ali supljak koji se do sada prosipao je bio supljak Busha, Obame, Hillary i upravo zato glasaju za Trumpa. Naravno da Trump ne moze da odradi ono sto je obecao, i stoga je i njegova shuplja, ali on je bar ukazao ispravno na mnogo problema u drustvu i ekonomiji koje mainstream ne zele potencirati.

Kao sto ti rekoh, demokratija smo. I narod je odlucio. A sad cekaj da li ce se aberacija popraviti ili ne.

Elektorat skontao da slatkorijecivost i suplja ne pije vode, ali je glasao za Trumpa koji prosipa supljak vise nego svi ostali zajedno? Nidze veze.

Bas me interesuje, hajde navedi te Trumpove "pozitivne" koje ti vidis

[jeza u ledja]

Ne kontam sta je pitanje...

[jeza u ledja]

Ne kontam sta je pitanje...

Pa pitanje je sta vidis pozitivno kod Trumpa mimo njegove negativne prezentacije, ako ima ista.

Apsolutno nista.

Doduse, jedina pozitivna stvar je sto je dokazano da autsajder moze pobjediti, da izborni proces nije samo u vezi toga ko ima vise para, tj. ko ce skupiti vise para od velikih donora.

[jeza u ledja]

Onda znaci da sam u pravu kada kazem da nisi vidio dalje od "grab the pussy" (da koristim taj shorthand)? Jer ja smatram da ima nesto vise.

Naravno da ima mnogo vise od toga, ali ja u tome ne vidim nista pozitivno, vec naprotiv.

[jeza u ledja]

Ma da da, Trump je rekao "svi ce imati osiguranje, sve cu ja to srediti", onda "ja cu rijesiti problem terorista", "ja cu vratiti fabrike, poslove u manufakturi", "svi ce biti zadovoljni i sve se viti super". Ma bravo, klap klap. Sto bi bilo super kad bi nam svaki politicar tako fino rekao da ce sve srediti, kako divno, kakva pozitiva!! A sve cemo rijesiti preko ledja manjina! Jupi!
Cuj vidio sam pozitivno?! Odlicno, onda da u buducnosti glasamo svi za politicara koji nam kaze kako ce sve biti super samo ako njega izaberemo. I onda jos kaze "he is telling it like it is"
Zdravstveno problem - sredicemo.
Ratovi problem - ma sredicemo.
Nemate posla - nacu vam ja posao.
Eto tako, dlan od dlan i ciribu ciriba. Eto pozitivno jarane.



Inace "norodu" nije prihvatljiviji od HRC, jer je on dobio 2 i po miliona glasova manje od HRC.

[Pandakonda]

Ma da da, Trump je rekao "svi ce imati osiguranje, sve cu ja to srediti", onda "ja cu rijesiti problem terorista", "ja cu vratiti fabrike, poslove u manufakturi", "svi ce biti zadovoljni i sve se viti super". Ma bravo, klap klap. Sto bi bilo super kad bi nam svaki politicar tako fino rekao da ce sve srediti, kako divno, kakva pozitiva!! A sve cemo rijesiti preko ledja manjina! Jupi!
Cuj vidio sam pozitivno?! Odlicno, onda da u buducnosti glasamo svi za politicara koji nam kaze kako ce sve biti super samo ako njega izaberemo. I onda jos kaze "he is telling it like it is"
Zdravstveno problem - sredicemo.
Ratovi problem - ma sredicemo.
Nemate posla - nacu vam ja posao.
Eto tako, dlan od dlan i ciribu ciriba. Eto pozitivno jarane.



Inace "norodu" nije prihvatljiviji od HRC, jer je on dobio 2 i po miliona glasova manje od HRC.

[jeza u ledja]

Ma da da, Trump je rekao "svi ce imati osiguranje, sve cu ja to srediti", onda "ja cu rijesiti problem terorista", "ja cu vratiti fabrike, poslove u manufakturi", "svi ce biti zadovoljni i sve se viti super". Ma bravo, klap klap. Sto bi bilo super kad bi nam svaki politicar tako fino rekao da ce sve srediti, kako divno, kakva pozitiva!! A sve cemo rijesiti preko ledja manjina! Jupi!
Cuj vidio sam pozitivno?! Odlicno, onda da u buducnosti glasamo svi za politicara koji nam kaze kako ce sve biti super samo ako njega izaberemo. I onda jos kaze "he is telling it like it is"
Zdravstveno problem - sredicemo.
Ratovi problem - ma sredicemo.
Nemate posla - nacu vam ja posao.
Eto tako, dlan od dlan i ciribu ciriba. Eto pozitivno jarane.



Inace "norodu" nije prihvatljiviji od HRC, jer je on dobio 2 i po miliona glasova manje od HRC.

Are you dense?

[jeza u ledja]

Jez, previse ironiziras. Trump je napao dvije teme koje su tabu, jedna za gop a druga za demse. Ni jedan gop nece kritikovati Busha i rat u Iraku, ni jedan dems nece kritikovati Obamacare (osim Bernija koji je to radio al samo u primary a koji kako i sam kazes ionako nije dems).

A ovo sad sto pises zvuci kao "run of the mill" politicar koji ce svima sve obecati. A ja ti objasnjavam da nije, jer se usudio ici u tabu teme za dominatne partije koje "run of the mill" nikad ne bi pomenuo.
Time, ako i nije pridobio ljude da glasaju za njeg, pridobio je njihovo "uho" da ga saslusaju.

Problem je sto nisi "open minded" (zao mi je sto ovo moram reci) i ne mozes shvatiti da ljudi mogu i drugacije razmisljati, te zato sve sada trpas u rasiste. A takvo "trpanje" i "basket of deplorables" bi mogli ponovo biti pogubni po demse.

Ja se NE slazem sa Trumpom ali DA, ja razumijem zasto su ljudi glasali za njega.

Ti govoris da razumijes zasto su glasali za njega, ja govorim da ja razumijem i da to nije to sto ti govoris.

Narod je glup, zatupljen i povodljiv. To sto je narod glup, zatupljen i povodljiv ne znaci da su njihova nezadovoljstva opravdana, kao ni da su sva nezadovoljstva koja imaju NE opravdana. Ja nisam "Dems", i ja govorim sta ja mislim, ne sta misle Dems i sta mislim da treba da rade Dems. Ponavljam ti brkas licne stavove sa politikom, sa politickim procesom i sa izbornim procesom.

Republikanci su izgubili izbore zbog Busha jos 2008-e. Njegova podrska je pala na 25% prije nego sto zavrsiti u velikoj mjeri upravo zbog ratova. Tako da guranje te price nije bio nikakva avangarda.
Mnoge druge stvari je "regurtitate" sto je vidio da prolazi kod povodoljivog naroda, na najprostiji moguci nacin. Sve populisticke ideje kroz cijeli spektar politickih ideja je skupio na jedno to prezentovao narodu na tako plitak nacin da je to bilo komicno gledati i slusati. Naravno sad se on ono sto kazu zadnji smije jer je pokazao koliko je narod glup i povodljiv. Tu nista nije pozitivno, to je zalosno svakom inteligentnom covjeku. I to ne zato sto je lose da svi imamo poslove i osiguranje i da nam rastu lale iz usiju, vec zato sto je bilo jasno da lik nema nikakvu namjeru, sposobnost niti mogucnost da te svoje lazi ostvari. Inteligentnom covjeku je to moglo biti jasno.

I nije tacno da je Clinton govorila sve je u redu, sve super, nista ne treba mijenjati, vec je i ona pricala vrlo slicne stvari kao i Sanders (dijelom jer je vidjela i njegov uspjeh tom pricom), ljudi nisu glasali za nju u dovoljnom broju jer joj jednostavno nisu vjerovali. To je bila glavna stvar, a ne to sto prica.
Na isti nacin je trebao biti i Trump problematican - zbog onoga sto predstavlja, ako nista. Lazi i ublehe na najocitiji nacin.
Nista pozitivno.

A to "open minded", opet licna opaska...

[jeza u ledja]

Iii, tako je Donald Fredo Trump, bio u korespondenciji sa WikiLeaks, tokom izbora:

The Secret Correspondence Between Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks

Just before the stroke of midnight on September 20, 2016, at the height of last year’s presidential election, the WikiLeaks Twitter account sent a private direct message to Donald Trump Jr., the Republican nominee’s oldest son and campaign surrogate. “A PAC run anti-Trump site putintrump.org is about to launch,” WikiLeaks wrote. “The PAC is a recycled pro-Iraq war PAC. We have guessed the password. It is ‘putintrump.’ See ‘About’ for who is behind it. Any comments?” (The site, which has since become a joint project with Mother Jones, was founded by Rob Glaser, a tech entrepreneur, and was funded by Progress for USA Political Action Committee.)

The next morning, about 12 hours later, Trump Jr. responded to WikiLeaks. “Off the record I don’t know who that is, but I’ll ask around,” he wrote on September 21, 2016. “Thanks.”

The messages, obtained by The Atlantic, were also turned over by Trump Jr.’s lawyers to congressional investigators. They are part of a long—and largely one-sided—correspondence between WikiLeaks and the president’s son that continued until at least July 2017. The messages show WikiLeaks, a radical transparency organization that the American intelligence community believes was chosen by the Russian government to disseminate the information it had hacked, actively soliciting Trump Jr.’s cooperation. WikiLeaks made a series of increasingly bold requests, including asking for Trump’s tax returns, urging the Trump campaign on Election Day to reject the results of the election as rigged, and requesting that the president-elect tell Australia to appoint Julian Assange ambassador to the United States.

“Over the last several months, we have worked cooperatively with each of the committees and have voluntarily turned over thousands of documents in response to their requests,” said Alan Futerfas, an attorney for Donald Trump Jr. “Putting aside the question as to why or by whom such documents, provided to Congress under promises of confidentiality, have been selectively leaked, we can say with confidence that we have no concerns about these documents and any questions raised about them have been easily answered in the appropriate forum.” WikiLeaks did not respond to requests for comment.

The messages were turned over to Congress as part of that body’s various ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. American intelligence services have accused the Kremlin of engaging in a deliberate effort to boost President Donald Trump’s chances while bringing down his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. That effort—and the president’s response to it—has spawned multiple congressional investigations, and a special counsel inquiry that has led to the indictment of Trump’s former campaign chair, Paul Manafort, for financial crimes.

Though Trump Jr. mostly ignored the frequent messages from WikiLeaks, he at times appears to have acted on its requests. When WikiLeaks first reached out to Trump Jr. about putintrump.org, for instance, Trump Jr. followed up on his promise to “ask around.” According to a source familiar with the congressional investigations into Russian interference with the 2016 campaign, who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, on the same day that Trump Jr. received the first message from WikiLeaks, he emailed other senior officials with the Trump campaign, including Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, telling them WikiLeaks had made contact. Kushner then forwarded the email to campaign communications staffer Hope Hicks. At no point during the 10-month correspondence does Trump Jr. rebuff WikiLeaks, which had published stolen documents and was already observed to be releasing information that benefited Russian interests.

WikiLeaks played a pivotal role in the presidential campaign. In July 2016, on the first day of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks released emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee's servers that spring. The emails showed DNC officials denigrating Bernie Sanders, renewing tensions on the eve of Clinton’s acceptance of the nomination. On October 7, less than an hour after the Washington Post released the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, Wikileaks released emails that hackers had pilfered from the personal email account of Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta.

On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks wrote again. “Hiya, it’d be great if you guys could comment on/push this story,” WikiLeaks suggested, attaching a quote from then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton about wanting to “just drone” WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.

“Already did that earlier today,” Trump Jr. responded an hour-and-a-half later. “It’s amazing what she can get away with.”

Two minutes later, Trump Jr. wrote again, asking, “What’s behind this Wednesday leak I keep reading about?” The day before, Roger Stone, an informal advisor to Donald Trump, had tweeted, “Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done. #WikiLeaks.”

WikiLeaks didn’t respond to that message, but on October 12, 2016, the account again messaged Trump Jr. “Hey Donald, great to see you and your dad talking about our publications,” WikiLeaks wrote. (At a rally on October 10, Donald Trump had proclaimed, “I love WikiLeaks!”)

“Strongly suggest your dad tweets this link if he mentions us,” WikiLeaks went on, pointing Trump Jr. to the link wlsearch.tk, which it said would help Trump’s followers dig through the trove of stolen documents and find stories. “There’s many great stories the press are missing and we’re sure some of your follows [sic] will find it,” WikiLeaks went on. “Btw we just released Podesta Emails Part 4.”

Trump Jr. did not respond to this message. But just 15 minutes after it was sent, as The Wall Street Journal’s Byron Tau pointed out, Donald Trump himself tweeted, “Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!”

Two days later, on October 14, 2016, Trump Jr. tweeted out the link WikiLeaks had provided him. “For those who have the time to read about all the corruption and hypocrisy all the @wikileaks emails are right here: http://wlsearch.tk/,” he wrote.

After this point, Trump Jr. ceased to respond to WikiLeaks’s direct messages, but WikiLeaks escalated its requests.

“Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”

It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a ‘pro-Trump’ ‘pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”

Trump Jr. did not respond to this message.

WikiLeaks didn’t write again until Election Day, November 8, 2016. “Hi Don if your father ‘loses’ we think it is much more interesting if he DOES NOT conceed [sic] and spends time CHALLENGING the media and other types of rigging that occurred—as he has implied that he might do,” WikiLeaks wrote at 6:35pm, when the idea that Clinton would win was still the prevailing conventional wisdom. (As late as 7:00pm that night, FiveThirtyEight, a trusted prognosticator of the election, gave Clinton a 71 percent chance of winning the presidency.) WikiLeaks insisted that contesting the election results would be good for Trump’s rumored plans to start a media network should he lose the presidency. “The discussion can be transformative as it exposes media corruption, primary corruption, PAC corruption, etc.,” WikiLeaks wrote.

Shortly after midnight that day, when it was clear that Trump had beaten all expectations and won the presidency, WikiLeaks sent him a simple message: “Wow.”

Trump Jr. did not respond to these messages either, but WikiLeaks was undeterred. “Hi Don. Hope you’re doing well!” WikiLeaks wrote on December 16 to Trump Jr., who was by then the son of the president-elect. “In relation to Mr. Assange: Obama/Clinton placed pressure on Sweden, UK and Australia (his home country) to illicitly go after Mr. Assange. It would be real easy and helpful for your dad to suggest that Australia appoint Assange ambassador to [Washington,] DC.”

WikiLeaks even imagined how Trump might put it: “‘That’s a real smart tough guy and the most famous australian [sic] you have!’ or something similar,” WikiLeaks wrote. “They won’t do it but it will send the right signals to Australia, UK + Sweden to start following the law and stop bending it to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.” (On December 7, Assange, proclaiming his innocence, had released his testimony in front of London investigators looking into accusations that he had committed alleged sexual assault.)

In the winter and spring, WikiLeaks went largely silent, only occasionally sending Trump Jr. links. But on July 11, 2017, three days after The New York Times broke the story about Trump Jr.’s June 2016 meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya, a Russian lawyer with connections to Russia’s powerful prosecutor general, WikiLeaks got in touch again.

“Hi Don. Sorry to hear about your problems,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We have an idea that may help a little. We are VERY interested in confidentially obtaining and publishing a copy of the email(s) cited in the New York Times today,” citing a reference in the paper to emails Trump Jr had exchanged with Rob Goldstone, a publicist who had helped set up the meeting. “We think this is strongly in your interest,” WikiLeaks went on. It then reprised many of the same arguments it made in trying to convince Trump Jr. to turn over his father’s tax returns, including the argument that Trump’s enemies in the press were using the emails to spin an unfavorable narrative of the meeting. “Us publishing not only deprives them of this ability but is beautifully confounding.”

The message was sent at 9:29 am on July 11. Trump Jr. did not respond, but just hours later, he posted the emails himself, on his own Twitter feed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ks/545738/

[raoul duke]

Pokrenuta istraga protiv Clinton fondacije. Ajde barem da ovo predizborno obecanje ispuni i konacno smjeste vjesticu iza resetaka.
Barem to, i od mene ima #Trump 2020

[jeza u ledja]

Eh, procitah fantastican clanak Ezre Kleina u Voxu danas, a u vezi Demokrata i primaries. On tvrdi da je DNC pogrijesila tako sto je prerano krunisala Clinton kao svog kandidata za predsjednika, i time izbacila iz trke sve ostale potencijalne clanove stranke, koji bi imali progresivniju poruku od Clintonove. Tvrdi da to ne znaci da su predizbori namjesteni, jer je u pitanju standardno politicko pozicioniranje, ali da su takvim nacinom sebi onemogucili pravedniju borbu razlicitih misljenja u stranci. I sto je mozda najbitnije, on tvrdi da je upravo to pomoglo, a ne odmoglo Bernijeu Sandersu, kao totalnom autsajderu, da izadje u prvi plan i napravi to sto je napravio. Drugi potencijalni igraci (tipa Biden ili cak Warren) su kao clanovi stranke uvidjeli da je aparat potpuno u rukama Clinton, koja je na ovoj koronaciji radila godinama.

Ovo je po meni najbolji opis svega onoga sto se desavalo. A evo i clanka:

Was the Democratic primary rigged?

Even for the Democratic Party, the past few weeks have been bizarre. First, Donna Brazile, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, published excerpts of a forthcoming book in which she says that after she took over the Democratic National Committee, she investigated “whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process” through the DNC, and discovered evidence that they did. “I had found my proof and it broke my heart,” she wrote.

In the aftermath of Brazile’s bombshell, Sen. Elizabeth Warren was asked if she “agree[d] with the notion that it was rigged?” “Yes,” she replied.

Within a few days, both Brazile and Warren walked their statements all the way back. Brazile now says she found “no evidence” the primary was rigged. Warren now says that though there was “some bias” within the DNC, “the overall 2016 primary process was fair.”

I have spent much of the past week trying to untangle this story, interviewing people on all sides of the primary and in a variety of positions at the DNC. The core facts are straightforward: As Barack Obama’s presidency drew to a close, the DNC was deep in debt. In return for a bailout, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave Hillary Clinton’s campaign more potential control over its operations and hiring decisions than was either ethical or wise. But those operations were mostly irrelevant to the primary and couldn’t have been used to rig the process even if anyone had wanted to use them that way; the primary schedule, debate schedule, and rules were set well in advance of these agreements. “I found nothing to say they were gaming the primary system,” Brazile told me. And while that contradicts the more sensational language she used in her book, it fits the facts she laid out both in her original piece and since.

But there’s a larger context that is more important than what happened at the DNC and is getting lost in the back and forth over joint fundraising agreements and staffing power. The Democratic Party — which is a different and more complex entity than the Democratic National Committee, and which includes elected officials and funders and activists and interest groups who are not expected to be neutral in primaries — really did favor Hillary Clinton from early in the campaign, and really did shape the race in consequential ways.

The irony is that Sanders was a prime beneficiary of this bias, not a victim of it. The losers were potential candidates like Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Warren, or Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper — and, thus, Democratic primary voters, who ended up with few choices in 2016. To the extent Democratic primary voters feel like they were denied a broad range of candidates in 2016, and that party officials tried to clear the field to coronate Clinton, well, they’re right.

Democratic elites, defined broadly, shaped the primary before voters ever got a chance to weigh in, and the way they tried to shape it was by uniting behind Clinton early in the hopes of avoiding a bruising, raucous race. The question — which is important going forward, not just for relitigating 2016 — is whether that was the right decision. I don’t think it was.

The 2016 primary really was weird

There were five candidates onstage at the first Democratic primary debate of 2015: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, ex-Democratic Sen. Jim Webb, and ex-Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. Of these candidates, only two — Clinton and O’Malley — were longtime Democrats. For an open primary in an at least plausibly Democratic year, this was an absurdly small field. The Republican primary, by comparison, had 17 candidates competing.

It’s easy to imagine Democrats who might have run in 2016. There’s Biden and Warren and Hickenlooper, but there was also New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, to name just a few. But all of these candidates, and all the other candidates like them, ultimately passed on the race. Why?

Part of it was that Hillary Clinton seemed almost certain to win the nomination. It’s easy to forget now, but Clinton was extremely popular as recently as 2014 — Gallup found she was the most popular potential candidate in either party, with a favorability rating of 55 percent. “Clinton’s iconic status is, increasingly, the only clear advantage the Democratic Party has,” wrote Ross Douthat at the time.

But part of it was the way elected officials, donors, and interest groups coalesced behind Clinton early, making it clear that alternative candidates would struggle to find money and staff and endorsements and media coverage. Clinton had the explicit support of the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and the implicit support of the Obama wing. She had spent decades building relationships in the party, and she leveraged them all in 2016. “Hillary had a lot of friends, and so did Bill,” says Elaine Kamarck, author of Primary Politics. This, in reality, is why Biden didn’t run: President Obama and his top staffers made quietly clear that they supported Clinton’s candidacy, and so she entered the field with the imprimatur that usually only accords to vice presidents.

Political junkies talk about the “invisible primary,” which Vox’s Andrew Prokop, in an excellent overview, describes as “the attempts by important elements of each major party — mainly elites and interest groups — to anoint a presidential nominee before the voting even begins. ... These insider deliberations take place in private conversations with each other and with the potential candidates, and eventually in public declarations of who they're choosing to endorse, donate to, or work for.”

Clinton dominated this invisible primary: She locked up the endorsements, the staff, and the funders early. All the way back in 2013, every female Democratic senator — including Warren — signed a letter urging Clinton to run for president. As FiveThirtyEight’s endorsement tracker showed, Clinton even outperformed past vice presidents, like Al Gore, in rolling up party support before the primaries:

The show of strength from Clinton and her allies was a way of warning off other candidates. She had the money, the support, the staff. Did they really just want to run and lose to her — and maybe alienate her and her team in the process?

Most possible Democratic candidates looked at this and decided no, they didn’t. They had too much to lose. And so that left a huge opening for a candidate with very little to lose.

How Bernie Sanders benefited from the party’s pro-Clinton bias

Just as it’s hard to remember what a popular, dominant political force Clinton appeared to be in 2014, it’s hard to remember how much more marginal a figure Sanders was. Back then, it was Elizabeth Warren who was thought the champion of the American left, the scourge of the banks, the enemy of the billionaires. Sanders was a gadfly senator with no major legislation to his name who idiosyncratically refused to officially join the Democratic Party. Gallup didn’t even include him in its polls.

But freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. Sanders didn’t need anything from the Democratic Party or from Hillary Clinton. He wasn’t afraid of her ire or trying to win consideration for a Cabinet position. He wanted his message heard, and the Democratic primary gave him a vehicle to make the world listen.

And then he got a gift. Clinton, in reality, didn’t just clear the Democratic field for herself — she cleared it for Sanders also. If he’d been running in a race that included Warren and Biden and Booker, it might have been a lot harder for his voice to break through. But he was really just running against Clinton and O’Malley. He was the only candidate representing the party’s populist-liberal wing and, given O’Malley’s failure to ignite voters, also the only candidate who offered Clinton’s critics a chance to stop her coronation.

Clinton’s obvious and overwhelming support among party elites also gave Sanders a potent issue, particularly among Democratic voters who weren’t fans of the frontrunner. Sanders’s whole message was that the powerful and connected were rigging the systems of wealth and influence against the powerless, and here, in the Democratic Party, was one more example. Look at how few debates there were. Look at the emails in which DNC staffers clearly preferred Clinton. Look at all Clinton’s endorsements, her money, her machine. Did this look fair to you? Did this feel fair to you?

“They handed him a wedge issue,” says Ray Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. “It connected to his entire message about the elite versus the people.”

Other candidates I spoke to during and after the primaries recalled how hard it was to get money from Democratic funders, how hard it was to attract top Democratic staff. And then there were the Democratic debates — or lack thereof.

"The Republicans began debating every other week beginning in July,” recalls O’Malley. “And we were silent until October. Then we had our one primetime debate. That was in Las Vegas. And then we weren’t on primetime again until Iowa happened."

It’s not clear, in retrospect, that the sparse debate schedule was helpful for Clinton — debates are arguably her best medium. But what’s undeniable is that they were a way of limiting the voters’ exposure to the candidates.

None of this amounts to a rigging, or even anything particularly unusual. Brazile, for one, notes that she also worked to clear the field when she managed Gore’s 2000 campaign. “That’s politics,” she says. “There’s nothing wrong with that.”

But it led to a primary in which Democratic voters had few choices, and few opportunities to hear from the choices they did have.

What’s a political party for, anyway?

It’s easy to bash the DNC’s joint fundraising agreement with Clinton, or the leaked emails showing that DNC staffers were supportive of Clinton and frustrated by Sanders. The DNC is meant to be a neutral presence in party primaries, and even minor deviations from that position are affronts.

The harder question in the larger one: What role should party elites play in primaries? It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that they fully decided primaries, meeting in smoky back rooms during the political conventions to hash out the next nominee. Before 2016, the reigning political science theory of primaries was called “the party decides,” and it argued that political elites still largely decided party primaries, albeit through influencing voters rather than controlling convention delegates.

Today we are unsettled on the role party elites should play. Many Democrats, and many Republicans, lament that GOP elites have completely lost control of their primaries, giving us not only Donald Trump but Judge Roy Moore. As the same time, many Democrats, and the Republican president of the United States, criticize Democrats for retaining too much control over their primaries. (Although Sanders’s near defeat of Clinton implies that Democratic elites have less control than is widely thought.)

To political scientists, all of this reads a bit oddly. After all, what are political parties there to do if not influence primaries? “Nominations define parties, so of course party actors are going to fight hard to define it how they want it to be,” writes Jonathan Bernstein. “As they should.”

Still, I think Democrats made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. I even think Clinton’s campaign made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. Coronation isn’t a good look for anyone, and voters don’t like the feeling that someone is trying to make their choice for them. My guess is Clinton would’ve still won in a larger field, but the win would have felt more earned, more legitimate. And if she lost — if, unlike Sanders, Biden had decided the American people had not yet heard enough about the damn emails, and had run hard on them, and had taken Clinton down — Democrats might have been saved a debacle.

The reason it’s unwise for the party to try to decide as firmly and as early as Democrats did in 2016 is the party doesn’t have very good information that far before a general election. Candidates who look strong prove weak. Voters who seem satisfied prove restive. Competitive primaries surface unexpected information. If we’ve learned nothing else, it’s that political elites shouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume they can predict future elections.

The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders. But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible. And the party is still managing the resentment that engendered in voters. “Once somebody doesn’t trust you,” sighs Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic chair, “it’s very hard to get that trust back.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ary-rigged

[jeza u ledja]

Pokrenuta istraga protiv Clinton fondacije.

Opet lupas.

Jeff Sessions, americki drzavni odvjetnik, je juce poslao pismo ministarstvu pravosudja da razmotri eventualno otvaranje istrage. Danas je isti taj Sessions na saslusanju u Kongresu u vezi uplitanja Rusije u izbore prosle godine, izmedju ostalog odgovarao na pitanja Kongresmenima i u vezi ovoga. I jedan genijalac iz OK ga pitao u vezi otvaranja istrage protiv Clintonove, Fusion GPS, itd, kao kad ce to biti, mi to trazimo mjesecima, i pitao da li ce se oformiti tim za specijalnu istragu koji ce ovo istrazivati (pandan timu kojeg vodi Bob Mueller, a u vezi Rusije i uplitanja u izbore), na sta mu je Sessions odgovorio da se takva istraga otvara samo onda kada postoje "cinjenicne osnove", te da "ne postoji osnova za postavljanje specijalnog tuzitelja".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7uhe91wGUE

Ovo govori Jeff Sessions, Trumpov potrcko koji bi jedva docekao da ganja Clintonove.

To se moze desiti u buducnosti, ali o tom po tom. Do tad, ne lupaj gluposti sa lijevih sajtova.

[Truba]

http://www.rama-prozor.info/clanak/sjev ... smrt/33532

osudiše donalda na smrt

[sinuhe]

Zanimljivo predavanje o wilsonovcima i hamiltonovcima u odnosu na jacksonovce u americkoj politici i kako integrisati jacksonovce
https://www.c-span.org/video/?435953-2/ ... ign-policy