Donald J Trump - Predsjednik USA All About

[jeza u ledja]

Naletih bas na dobar clanak o ovome, iz Las Vegas Sun:

Enough with the silly suggestions on how to keep schools safe

Let’s assume for a moment that the way to stop gun violence at schools is to require teachers to be armed, as President Donald Trump and Wayne LaPierre and a host of NRA drones are suggesting.

Well, then, why stop there? Don’t people in other public settings deserve similar protection? Shouldn’t people who go to parks, beaches, shopping districts and the like be required to carry guns to protect their fellow citizens? Shouldn’t convenience store clerks, bartenders and restaurant staffs be mandated to be armed in order to guard their patrons? How about casino staff? Shouldn’t blackjack dealers be required to have a gun to protect the people at their tables, just like teachers and their students?

This could go on and on. Putting more guns in the hands of private citizens — a solution that would result in “Far more assets at much less cost than guards,” as Trump tweeted — would harden concerts and festivals, airliners, theaters, amusement parks and really any place where Americans gather.

After all, police officers and security staffers can’t be everywhere all the time. If the airlines gave every third or fourth passenger a gun as they boarded their flights, would-be terrorists would certainly think twice before causing any trouble, right? If bad guys knew that the kids in the Mickey Mouse and Goofy costumes had Glocks, they’d mind their P’s and Q’s, wouldn’t they?

OK, now let’s get back to the real world, where the idea of solving school shootings by flooding the public zone with more weapons as opposed to adopting reasonable gun safety policy is patently insane.

Think about the possible consequences. Despite best intentions, guns can be misplaced or taken from their owners. What might happen if one were to somehow get into a student’s hands, or if an angry student were to grab one out of a teacher’s holster?

Let’s say you’re a law enforcement officer responding to a report of shots fired at a school. You arrive, look down a hallway and see five adults pointing guns. Which one is the bad guy?

Finally, put yourself in a teacher’s shoes. You hear shots and run out of your classroom, where you see an unfamiliar adult running around in the chaos. Is that person the shooter? Or a substitute teacher in his first day at your school? Or a parent? You have a split second to decide. Make the wrong choice, and innocent people could die. That’s an awful lot to ask of someone who doesn’t work in law enforcement. Plus, let’s not forget that most shots fired in officer-involved shootings miss their target, and those are coming from highly trained and experienced law enforcement officials.

This is all so misdirected. The real solutions lie in increasing gun safety through adoption of universal background checks, a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, increasing the legal age to purchase firearms and passage of red-flag measures that would make it easier for officials to seize guns from people who have exhibited signs of being a danger to themselves or others.

If the answer were more guns, America would surely be safe now. After all, the number of guns owned by private citizens has been estimated at more than 300 million, and years of relentless attacks on gun safety laws by the NRA has resulted in those firearms being carried in public places by an ever-growing number of people.

Yet the tragic drumbeat of gun violence keeps pounding away. Glutting the country with guns has yielded the predictable result of making the U.S. one of the world’s most dangerous places in terms of gun violence. Our rate of homicides by firearm is 25 times higher than that of other high-income nations.

And let’s be clear, the gun safety measures like universal background checks and bans on assault weapons aren’t going to leave law-abiding Americans without firearms. They’re merely designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and impose some sensible limitations on weapons and ammunition based on military versions that were designed solely to kill people.

Will they end gun violence? No, but they could save lives without trampling the Second Amendment.

Meanwhile, the NRA’s Wild West approach of arming teachers and is yet another example of the gymnastics the organization is willing to perform to block any legislation that might reduce gun sales and hurt the firearms industry. A more extreme — and completely loony — proposal came from a local media commentator who suggested that drones operated out of Nellis Air Force Base be flown over every school in the U.S. to provide security.

Stop. Please.

Let’s put the focus where it should be — on limiting firepower and keeping the wrong people from obtaining guns.

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/feb/2 ... to-keep-o/

[GandalfSivi]

Naletih bas na dobar clanak o ovome, iz Las Vegas Sun:

Enough with the silly suggestions on how to keep schools safe

Let’s assume for a moment that the way to stop gun violence at schools is to require teachers to be armed, as President Donald Trump and Wayne LaPierre and a host of NRA drones are suggesting.

Well, then, why stop there? Don’t people in other public settings deserve similar protection? Shouldn’t people who go to parks, beaches, shopping districts and the like be required to carry guns to protect their fellow citizens? Shouldn’t convenience store clerks, bartenders and restaurant staffs be mandated to be armed in order to guard their patrons? How about casino staff? Shouldn’t blackjack dealers be required to have a gun to protect the people at their tables, just like teachers and their students?

This could go on and on. Putting more guns in the hands of private citizens — a solution that would result in “Far more assets at much less cost than guards,” as Trump tweeted — would harden concerts and festivals, airliners, theaters, amusement parks and really any place where Americans gather.

After all, police officers and security staffers can’t be everywhere all the time. If the airlines gave every third or fourth passenger a gun as they boarded their flights, would-be terrorists would certainly think twice before causing any trouble, right? If bad guys knew that the kids in the Mickey Mouse and Goofy costumes had Glocks, they’d mind their P’s and Q’s, wouldn’t they?

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/feb/2 ... to-keep-o/

Ja bih uveo da je nosenje oruzja obavezno, pa jebem mu mater, idemo do kraja...

[AleksoMKD]

E jebiga, znao sam da su Ameri opiceni ali nema sanse da se ikada promeni odnos prema oruzju. Jeste da je iz 2013 godine ali vredi ponoviti:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... d/2780303/

Iowa grants gun permits to the blind

[sumirprimus]

Veci je problem da je doslo do te mjere da profesoor fizike mora nosati pistolj u ucionici. Trositi pare na takve stvari, kada je svima poznato da mnoge skole moraju moliti roditelje da doniraju nesto para da bi nabivili olovke, papair itd.

Razjebali zdrastveno, razjebali pristup mentalnom zdravlju, dali svakome sansu da kupi polu automatsko oruzje i onda je problem sto nastavnica nema pistolja. Glupo je, ali bi bilo bolje da svaka skola ima jednog ili dva marsala. Da svaki ulaz ima metalni detektor kroz koji moras proci.

Nece pistolj ili dva zaustaviti nekoga da udje u skolu i pocne pucati. Ovo je prvi put da su ga uhvatili zivog. Obicno ulaze u skolu sa znanjem da im je ostalo 10 minuta zivota, u to vrijeme ubij sto vise mozes i onda sami sebe ubiju ili sacekaju obracun sa policijom. Umjesto suicide by cop, bice suicide by teacher.

Zalosno je da ova drzava raspravlja koliko pistolja treba da bude u skoli da bi se djeca zastitila.

Izvinjavam se na OT, ali, jel ti pricas o nasim il o americkim skolama vezano za problematiku donacije za olovke papire i dr.skolski materijal?

[Jack Be Nimble]

Veci je problem da je doslo do te mjere da profesoor fizike mora nosati pistolj u ucionici. Trositi pare na takve stvari, kada je svima poznato da mnoge skole moraju moliti roditelje da doniraju nesto para da bi nabivili olovke, papair itd.

Razjebali zdrastveno, razjebali pristup mentalnom zdravlju, dali svakome sansu da kupi polu automatsko oruzje i onda je problem sto nastavnica nema pistolja. Glupo je, ali bi bilo bolje da svaka skola ima jednog ili dva marsala. Da svaki ulaz ima metalni detektor kroz koji moras proci.

Nece pistolj ili dva zaustaviti nekoga da udje u skolu i pocne pucati. Ovo je prvi put da su ga uhvatili zivog. Obicno ulaze u skolu sa znanjem da im je ostalo 10 minuta zivota, u to vrijeme ubij sto vise mozes i onda sami sebe ubiju ili sacekaju obracun sa policijom. Umjesto suicide by cop, bice suicide by teacher.

Zalosno je da ova drzava raspravlja koliko pistolja treba da bude u skoli da bi se djeca zastitila.

Izvinjavam se na OT, ali, jel ti pricas o nasim il o americkim skolama vezano za problematiku donacije za olovke papire i dr.skolski materijal?

O američkim, ali opet sve zavisi u kojem naselju se nalazi skola. U naselju gdje je prosječna zajednička plata oko 200k godišnje će biti mnogo bolja škola nego 2 km dalje gdje je zajednicka prosjecna plata 50k godisnje.

Prijatelj na FB je učitelj i on je postavio temu kao sta nam je bitnije imati u ucionici nego pistolji. Uglavnom odgovori drugi učitelja je u tipu financijska pomoć za ovo i ono jer oni iz svog džepa moraju plaćati za flomastere npr.

[daddy-kool]

https://i.imgur.com/SLeWckh.gifv

[daddy-kool]

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/arti ... t-collapse

US Power Will Decline Under Trump, Says Futurist Who Predicted Soviet Collapse

..

Fascism?

But the main book setting out Galtung's fascinating forecast for the US is his 2009 book, The Fall of the American Empire—and then What?

The book sets out a whopping 15 "synchronizing and mutually reinforcing contradictions" afflicting the US, which he says will lead to US global power ending by 2020—within just four years. Galtung warned that during this phase of decline, the US was likely to go through a phase of reactionary "fascism".

He argued that American fascism would come from a capacity for tremendous global violence; a vision of American exceptionalism as the "fittest nation"; a belief in a coming final war between good and evil; a cult of the strong state leading the fight of good against evil; and a cult of the "strong leader".

All of which, Galtung said, surfaced during the Bush era, and which now appear to have come to fruition through Trump. Such fascism, he told Motherboard, is a symptom of the decline—lashing out in disbelief at the loss of power.

Among the 15 structural contradictions his model identifies as driving the decline, are:

-economic contradictions such as 'overproduction relative to demand', unemployment and the increasing costs of climate change;
-military contradictions including rising tensions between the US, NATO, and its military allies, along with the increasing economic unsustainability of war;
-political contradictions including the conflicting roles of the US, UN and EU;
-cultural contradictions including tensions between US Judeo-Christianity, Islam, and other minorities;
-and social contradictions encompassing the increasing gulf between the so-called 'American Dream', the belief that everyone can prosper in America through hard work, and the reality of American life (the fact that more and more people can't).

Galtung's book explores how the structural inability to resolve such contradictions will lead to the unravelling of US political power, both globally, and potentially even domestically.

Global collapse

Trump has made clear that he thinks US troops are still needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even proposed sending more troops to Iraq. He also said that we should have 'grabbed' the country's oil. But he has also heavily (and incoherently) criticized US military policies.

Domestically, Trump has promised to deport 11 million illegal migrants, build a wall between the US and Mexico, compel all American Muslims to sign up to a government register, and ban all Muslim immigration to the US.

On the one hand, Trump might well offer an opportunity to avoid potential conflicts with great power rivals like Russia and China—on the other, he may still, stupidly, fight more unilateral wars and worsen domestic contradictions relating to minorities.

For Galtung, Trump's incoherent policy proposals are evidence of the deeper structural decline of US power: "He [Trump] blunts contradictions with Russia, possibly with China, and seems to do also with North Korea. But he sharpens contradictions inside the USA", such as in relation to minority rights.

On the one hand, Galtung said, Trump might well offer an opportunity to avoid potential conflicts with great power rivals like Russia and China—on the other, he may still, stupidly, fight more unilateral wars and worsen domestic contradictions relating to minorities.

Motherboard asked Galtung whether he thinks Trump would speed up his forecast of "collapse", or slow it down.

Even if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt, he said, and assume that he "prefers solving underlying conflicts, particularly with Russia, to war—in other words for the US not be imperial—then yes, that still speeds up the decline from above, and from the center… Of course, what he does as a President remains to be seen."

But what exactly is collapsing?

"An empire is more than violence around the world," said Galtung. "It is a cross-border structure with a center, the imperial country, and a periphery, the client countries. The point about imperialism is to make the elites in the periphery do the jobs for the center."

The center country may be a dictatorship or a democracy. So for Galtung, the collapse of the US empire comes "when the periphery elites no longer want to fight US wars, no longer want to exploit for the center."

For Galtung, a key sign of collapse would be Trump's attitude to NATO. The President-elect has said he would be happy to see NATO break-up if US allies aren't willing to pay their dues. Trump's 'go it alone' approach would, Galtung said, accelerate and undermine US global empire at the same time.

"The collapse has two faces," said Galtung. "Other countries refuse to be 'good allies: and the USA has to do the killing themselves, by bombing from high altitudes, drones steered by computer from an office, Special Forces killing all over the place. Both are happening today, except for Northern Europe, which supports these wars, for now. That will probably not continue beyond 2020, so I stand by that deadline."

[GandalfSivi]

I tako to pocne...

http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politic ... t-weapons/

[madner]

Velika je to drzava, svaka cast kako se brane principi i ne podljeze histeriji.

[jeza u ledja]

Velika je to drzava, svaka cast kako se brane principi i ne podljeze histeriji.

Jedina histerija ovdje prisutna je od strane idiota koji misle da imaju bogom dano pravo da hodaju okolo sa vojnim naoruzanjem ili bilo kakvim naoruzanjem bilo gdje. Tu ne postoji nikakav princip, vec kretenska ideja poluobrazovanih odraslih muskaraca koji kompleks male kite rjesavaju pucanjem iz igracki koje siju smrt.

Drugi amandman je princip - a on nema veze sa jurisnim oruzjem, a nema veze ni sa oruzjem u skolama.

[ultima_palabra]

Drugi amandman je kurac od ovce.

U rangu onih sto bukvalno primjenjuju serijat, kamenuju, bicuju itd.

[jeza u ledja]

Drugi amandman je kurac od ovce.

U rangu onih sto bukvalno primjenjuju serijat, kamenuju, bicuju itd.

Ameri imaju fiks ideje u vezi Bill of Rights. Ima smisla donekle jer su ti principi kojim se vodila zemlja od kad postoji. Ali proslo je 250 godina. Na isti nacin kao sto su evangelisticki baptisti fiksirani na bukvalno interpretiranje Biblije, tako su fiksirani i na tumacenje ovih amandmana. IAKO ni najliberalnija interpretacija istih nema veze sa ovim sto imamo danas.
Inace i Prvi amandman (sloboda govora) ima svoje zakonske limite, kao i svi ostali. Logicno da isto vazi iz a Drugi.

Al cuj principi. Kakvi ba principi u pitanju je samo neizivljenost i propagandni trik pohlepnih firmi.

[madner]

Velika je to drzava, svaka cast kako se brane principi i ne podljeze histeriji.

Jedina histerija ovdje prisutna je od strane idiota koji misle da imaju bogom dano pravo da hodaju okolo sa vojnim naoruzanjem ili bilo kakvim naoruzanjem bilo gdje. Tu ne postoji nikakav princip, vec kretenska ideja poluobrazovanih odraslih muskaraca koji kompleks male kite rjesavaju pucanjem iz igracki koje siju smrt.

Drugi amandman je princip - a on nema veze sa jurisnim oruzjem, a nema veze ni sa oruzjem u skolama.

Pa imaju u USA.
Princip koji kaze da gradjani imaju pravo da posjeduju i nose oruzje (bez izuzetaka) i da formiraju vojne jedinice. Militia nije nista drugo nego samoorganizovana vojna formacija i USA ima tradiciju da takve formacije budu prve koje ucestvuju u ratovima.

Zapravo je upitno i kako drzava ima pravo ograniciti i teze naoruzanje. Dugo vremena su imali isto oruzje kao i US Army, sada je ogromna razlika.

[jeza u ledja]

"Militia" vec postoji u obliku Nacionalne Garde koju ima svaka drzava, a oni imaju i tesko naoruzanje. I to "well regulated militia".

Inace svaki amandman je prosao kroz milion sudskih procesa i interpretacija tokom godina. Kao sto rekoh, Amerikanci imaju fiksiranost na bukvalne interepretacije pisanog slova, iako ni ono samo nema jasno znacenje.

Sta znaci "right to bear arms" u kontekstu nukleranih raketa, aviona, ili nosaca aviona? Nista.

[raoul duke]

Ono kad novokomponovani migranti hoce mijenati americki Ustav, sta kaze ovaj gore pisa se na drugi amandman
Nazad u shithole drzavu ako ti se ne svidja

[madner]

Nacionalna Garda je i zakonski rezerva US Army, dakle dio oruzane sile drzave.

Prosao je kroz razne sudske procese, i pravo pojedinca da nosi i posjeduje oruzje je vise puta zasticeno u tom procesu tako da NG nije i ne moze biti razlog da se pravo smanji ili ukine. 2010 je najveca instanca upravo to presudila, to je individualno a ne kolektivno pravo.

Znaci itekako.

[jeza u ledja]

Nacionalna Garda je i zakonski rezerva US Army, dakle dio oruzane sile drzave.

Prosao je kroz razne sudske procese, i pravo pojedinca da nosi i posjeduje oruzje je vise puta zasticeno u tom procesu tako da NG nije i ne moze biti razlog da se pravo smanji ili ukine. 2010 je najveca instanca upravo to presudila, to je individualno a ne kolektivno pravo.

Znaci itekako.

Ono sto ti ja govorim je da je Drugi amandman itekako otvoren interpretacijama sudskih instanci, ukljucujuci i onu vrhovnu. I postoje mnoga ogranicenja, ukljucujuci i od strane Vrhovnog suda u vezi okvira Drugog amandmana. Svaki amandman je interpretiran tokom godina i postoje razlicita ogranicenja u okviru istog. Logicno - jer par pisanih recenica ne mogu drzati zakon 250 godina.

[jeza u ledja]

Ono kad novokomponovani migranti hoce mijenati americki Ustav, sta kaze ovaj gore pisa se na drugi amandman
Nazad u shithole drzavu ako ti se ne svidja

Djecacicu, idi igraj se s cunom, pusti odrasle da raspravljaju.

[madner]

Nacionalna Garda je i zakonski rezerva US Army, dakle dio oruzane sile drzave.

Prosao je kroz razne sudske procese, i pravo pojedinca da nosi i posjeduje oruzje je vise puta zasticeno u tom procesu tako da NG nije i ne moze biti razlog da se pravo smanji ili ukine. 2010 je najveca instanca upravo to presudila, to je individualno a ne kolektivno pravo.

Znaci itekako.

Ono sto ti ja govorim je da je Drugi amandman itekako otvoren interpretacijama sudskih instanci, ukljucujuci i onu vrhovnu. I postoje mnoga ogranicenja, ukljucujuci i od strane Vrhovnog suda u vezi okvira Drugog amandmana. Svaki amandman je interpretiran tokom godina i postoje razlicita ogranicenja u okviru istog. Logicno - jer par pisanih recenica ne mogu drzati zakon 250 godina.

To se mislim ne mora posebno naglasiti. Medjutim, interpretacije Vrhovnog Suda ne ostavljaju nikakav prostor za zabranu naoruzanja. Jer su presudili da je to individualno pravo. Nije jos jasno da li je to pravo gradjana USA ili svih zitelja.

Ogranicenja naravno postoje, ni jedno pravo ne postoji u vakumu.

Sasvim je ok reci da je clan glup, vjerovatno danas ne bi bio napisan tako. Samo treba biti iskren i takodje reci da ovakav kakav jeste stiti prava pojedinaca na kupe i nose (vojno) oruzje.

[jeza u ledja]

Nacionalna Garda je i zakonski rezerva US Army, dakle dio oruzane sile drzave.

Prosao je kroz razne sudske procese, i pravo pojedinca da nosi i posjeduje oruzje je vise puta zasticeno u tom procesu tako da NG nije i ne moze biti razlog da se pravo smanji ili ukine. 2010 je najveca instanca upravo to presudila, to je individualno a ne kolektivno pravo.

Znaci itekako.

Ono sto ti ja govorim je da je Drugi amandman itekako otvoren interpretacijama sudskih instanci, ukljucujuci i onu vrhovnu. I postoje mnoga ogranicenja, ukljucujuci i od strane Vrhovnog suda u vezi okvira Drugog amandmana. Svaki amandman je interpretiran tokom godina i postoje razlicita ogranicenja u okviru istog. Logicno - jer par pisanih recenica ne mogu drzati zakon 250 godina.

To se mislim ne mora posebno naglasiti. Medjutim, interpretacije Vrhovnog Suda ne ostavljaju nikakav prostor za zabranu naoruzanja. Jer su presudili da je to individualno pravo. Nije jos jasno da li je to pravo gradjana USA ili svih zitelja.

Ogranicenja naravno postoje, ni jedno pravo ne postoji u vakumu.

Sasvim je ok reci da je clan glup, vjerovatno danas ne bi bio napisan tako. Samo treba biti iskren i takodje reci da ovakav kakav jeste stiti prava pojedinaca na kupe i nose (vojno) oruzje.

Pa interpretacija je takva da postoje ogranicenja, koja ukljucuju neka vrsta oruzja. Na primjer postoji zakon koji ogranicava prodaju automatskog oruzja. Ne znam da se Vrhovni sud ocitovao po tom pitanju, kao sto se nije ocitovao ni po pitanjima koje niko nije ni postavljao, tipa moze li pojedinac posjedovati nuklearno oruzje. Hocu reci, postoji granica apsurdnosti, samo je pitanje kako ce to Kongres i da li ce Sud uopste intepretirati.

Princip ocigledno nije takav da daje neogranicena prava gradjanima sto se tice kupovine oruzja.

[Jack Be Nimble]

Sto se tice vrhovnog suda, drugi amandman ne daje ti pravo uzimati vojno oruzje. To je NRA luda želja da vrhovni sud proglas ar 15 kao tvoje lično pravo, što su uradili za pištolje. Kada se zadnji put o tome raspravljalo, sam scallia je rekao da drugi amandman ne daje zvanični pravo da uzmeš ar15.

[jeza u ledja]

Sto se tice vrhovnog suda, drugi amandman ne daje ti pravo uzimati vojno oruzje. To je NRA luda želja da vrhovni sud proglas ar 15 kao tvoje lično pravo, što su uradili za pištolje. Kada se zadnji put o tome raspravljalo, sam scallia je rekao da drugi amandman ne daje zvanični pravo da uzmeš ar15.

Da:

The late justice also more generally offered the belief that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

[video]

Pa nije valjda da ga ostavlja i ova njegova ljepotica

Code: Select all

https://www.slobodna-bosna.ba/vijest/73849/rasulo_u_bijeloj_kuci_trump_ostaje_bez_najodanije_suradnice_hope_hicks.html  

[jeza u ledja]

Pa nije valjda da ga ostavlja i ova njegova ljepotica

Code: Select all

https://www.slobodna-bosna.ba/vijest/73849/rasulo_u_bijeloj_kuci_trump_ostaje_bez_najodanije_suradnice_hope_hicks.html  

I to dan nakon sto je svjedocila pred Kongresom u vezi istrage o Rusiji.

In other news, Mueller trenutno istrazuje da li je Trump znao za sastanak Trumpa Jr, Kushnera i Manaforta sa ruskim dousnicima proslo ljeto, i da li je znao unaprijed da ce Rusi preko WikiLeaks izbaciti hakirane emailove Clinton kampanje i DNC. Ako se ovo drugo ispostavi tacnim i dokaze, Trump je gotov.

[AleksoMKD]

Ameri imaju fiks ideje u vezi Bill of Rights. Ima smisla donekle jer su ti principi kojim se vodila zemlja od kad postoji. Ali proslo je 250 godina. Na isti nacin kao sto su evangelisticki baptisti fiksirani na bukvalno interpretiranje Biblije, tako su fiksirani i na tumacenje ovih amandmana. IAKO ni najliberalnija interpretacija istih nema veze sa ovim sto imamo danas.
Inace i Prvi amandman (sloboda govora) ima svoje zakonske limite, kao i svi ostali. Logicno da isto vazi iz a Drugi.

Al cuj principi. Kakvi ba principi u pitanju je samo neizivljenost i propagandni trik pohlepnih firmi.

Zar nije neki od "founding fathers" mislio da ustav treba svaka generacija menjati po potrebi jer nije fer da buduce generacije slede slepo volju osnivaca iz proslosti? Ili ja gresim?