Donald J Trump - Predsjednik USA All About

[Gojeni H]

President-elect Donald Trump nominated Linda McMahon — a former CEO of the WWE and former candidate for the US Senate — to head the Small Business Administration...in August and September, McMahon donated $6 million to a pro-Trump super PAC, The Washington Post reported. McMahon and her husband also donated $5 million to Trump’s charity, the paper also reported, between 2007 and 2009.


Trump to name Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA

takozvana i krv svoju za ameriku moju administracija.

Show must go on ...

[jefferson]

jel nas jozica marsal bio na timeu

Da se zna

[Gojeni H]

jel nas jozica marsal bio na timeu

Da se zna

Prvi cover je nakav tamo vodja nakih partizana koji se k'o mahniti, uz sasvim malu pomoc sa strane, bore protiv mrskog njemackog okupatora i njihovih sluga.

Ako se ne varam, ovaj drugi je iz '65-e. Sta je bilo te godine pa da njega stavljaju?

[jefferson]

Drugi je iz 1955, a ne 1965.
Ma sva ona halabuka oko Stalina i onda Kruscev dosao u BGD da se izvine
Naravno, 1957 Kruscev je htio opet da zajebe Tita, ali nije uspio.
Ja mislim da sam vidio jos jednu naslovnicu TIME-a sa Titom, ali nigdje ne mogu da je nadjem.
Ovu sam narucio davnih dana, pa je stavio u kancelariju, da se zna ko je dezurni komunjara na poslu

[KB9]

cuj tramp se okruzio provjereno sposobnim ljudima, pa kako ga nije sramota

trebo je uzet kokuze da se uhljebe oko njega ko nasi dobri vladari

[Gojeni H]

Drugi je iz 1955, a ne 1965.
Ma sva ona halabuka oko Stalina i onda Kruscev dosao u BGD da se izvine
Naravno, 1957 Kruscev je htio opet da zajebe Tita, ali nije uspio.
Ja mislim da sam vidio jos jednu naslovnicu TIME-a sa Titom, ali nigdje ne mogu da je nadjem.
Ovu sam narucio davnih dana, pa je stavio u kancelariju, da se zna ko je dezurni komunjara na poslu

Vjerovatno si omiljeni lik na poslu, a tek na team building sastancima.

[jefferson]

Drugi je iz 1955, a ne 1965.
Ma sva ona halabuka oko Stalina i onda Kruscev dosao u BGD da se izvine
Naravno, 1957 Kruscev je htio opet da zajebe Tita, ali nije uspio.
Ja mislim da sam vidio jos jednu naslovnicu TIME-a sa Titom, ali nigdje ne mogu da je nadjem.
Ovu sam narucio davnih dana, pa je stavio u kancelariju, da se zna ko je dezurni komunjara na poslu

Vjerovatno si omiljeni lik na poslu, a tek na team building sastancima.

Na team building sastancima pucam klasicnu balkansku bolest zvana: teorija zavjere

[daddy-kool]

As editor Helen Rosner put it on Twitter, “Zero chance the slew of 1940s aesthetic references in this shot are unintentional: Kodachrome palette, backdrop/shadow, Louis XVI chair.” His gilded opulence — not his face, or his body — are in the foreground, the chair itself an obvious echo of a similar shot of Hitler, also on the cover of Time, in 1941. He looks over his shoulder at his audience, not directly at them.
..
You have to reverse the order so that Trump and Hitler look like they are having a conversation. The chairs line up perfectly, including the depth of each individual, with Hitler slightly further in the distance.
..

During his recent 60 Minutes interview, Donald Trump was perched on a throne-like gilded Louis XV chair—just one of the many gold-plated objects the president-elect surrounds himself with, from his plane to his apocryphal toilet.

Možda stolica (prije prezentovana blistava, zlatna, versajska) simbolizira nešto u smislu kako mu je stvarna pozadina stara, prljava i poderana?

[pici]

za novopeČenog fHašosoidnog prdCenika od HameriKu...

[Banksy]

Stolica je Amerika - potrošen, ofucan koncept zemlje slobode, ljudskih prava, demokracije, blabla, okrenuta leđa i pogled preko ramena - neiskren, sakrivenih namjera, iz mraka - jasno je + divided states, sve su rekli što je trebalo.
I ovo s Hitlerom je baš zanimljivo, zaista, kao da razgovaraju...

[daddy-kool]

Stolica je Amerika - potrošen, ofucan koncept zemlje slobode, ljudskih prava, demokracije, blabla,

Amerikanci ne vide tako Ameriku, iako objašnjenje ima smisla (stolica, tron, presidency, njima svete i blistave stvari kao office of the president su pale na niske grane, potrošene i sl.)

[Banksy]

Stolica je Amerika - potrošen, ofucan koncept zemlje slobode, ljudskih prava, demokracije, blabla,

Amerikanci ne vide tako Ameriku, iako objašnjenje ima smisla (stolica, tron, presidency, njima svete i blistave stvari kao office of the president su pale na niske grane, potrošene i sl.)

Da, sigurno je to tron. I rogovi od slova M

I evo nas, opet pričamo o Trumpu koji ponovo profitira od medijskih napisa...
I tako, zlo ili ne, sigurno je ličnost godine i precizna slika vremena u kojem živimo.

[cyprus]

I tako, zlo ili ne, sigurno je ličnost godine i precizna slika vremena u kojem živimo.

Ovo bi zapravo vrlo lako mogao prestati prelaz iz vremena u kome smo do sada živjeli u neko novo vrijeme... I bojim se da ćemo žaliti za dosadašnjim vremenom...

Al' daj Bože da pretjerujem...

[Banksy]

Pa, već smo prešli. 2000. je zaista bila nulta godina...

[cyprus]

Pa, već smo prešli. 2000. je zaista bila nulta godina...

Ja mislim da bi se moglo raditi o malo većem breaking pointu od toga... Više nešto tipa 45-e ili 91-e, ali u negativnom smislu...

[omar little]

ceka nas mad max svijet ili neka od charlie brooker distopija.

[Acid25]

cuj tramp se okruzio provjereno sposobnim ljudima, pa kako ga nije sramota

trebo je uzet kokuze da se uhljebe oko njega ko nasi dobri vladari

Pernara i Mladena da unište masonce i bankare.

[omar little]

sta ja cijelo vrijeme govorim za republikance

During the Republican primaries, the Weekly Standard editor William Kristol described Trumpism as “two-bit Caesarism” and called Trump “the very epitome of vulgarity.” The Commentary editor and New York Post columnist John Podhoretz derided Trump as “the politicized American id” and went on to declare, “Should his election results match his polls, he would be, unquestionably, the worst thing to happen to the American common culture in my lifetime.” The editors of National Review wrote, “Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.”

Since the election, though, few, if any, blog posts or articles have appeared in the main conservative outlets straightforwardly arguing, conceding, or lamenting that the election of this unfit demagogue is a bad thing. This man they’d execrated and denounced had shocked the world—not just by being his shocking self but by winning; nobody expected him to win!—and yet from them this evoked no reaction. No articles about the Caesarist threat. No articles about a Trump-defiled common culture. No articles about how our ship of state will soon have at its helm the notorious Captain Id. With everyone else flung into various states of surprise and alarm, the conservative magazines went meta. They reacted to other people’s reactions, mainly those of “the left.” If you read National Review in the days after the election, you’d have thought that the big news of the week wasn’t the world-jolting victory of a candidate whom the magazine had itself denounced as “a menace,” a man so foul that it would not endorse him against Hillary freakin’ Clinton, but that liberals were upset enough about this outcome to do some post-election protesting.

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultur ... nced-trump

[Pandakonda]

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches —​​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.

[daddy-kool]

Nismo ništa raspravljali da bi se kao argument upotijebilo poređenje sa Hitlerom.
Ovo je bilo više u smislu diskusije o estetici fotografije na naslovnici Time-a za Person of the year.

[cyprus]

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches —​​that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler.

Pa ako diskusija traje duže, onda je veća šansa da se spomene bilo šta, evo npr. Kanada... Veća je šansa da će neko spomenuti Kanadu u 50 postova, nego u samo jednom... Isto važi i za čekić, more, fasadu, bihejviorizam, Miralema Sulejmanija, tintu, osiromašeni uranij, Tupaca, trisekciju ugla, pa zašto ne onda i Hitera Ako diskusija potraje dovoljno drugo, sooner or later, sve ovo će biti spomenuto

[omar little]

u svijetu u kojem neonacisti dobijaju poslove u bijeloj kuci godwin's law vise ne vazi.

[Banksy]

Pa šta i da ga jesmo spomenuli? Ako je Hitler globalna i bezvremenska jedinica za zlo, onda je logično da će se njegovo ime češće čuti u raspravama o zlu, zlim ljudima i pojavama. Ali kad do takve rasprave i dođe, u tom slučaju, nije do Hitlera, već do onih s kojim ga uspoređujemo. Zašto se njegovo ime pojavljuje u razgovorima o Trumpu, a ne o Trudeauu, recimo.

[omar little]

zato sto desnicari na djastina lijepe castra.

[pici]

planet 2020 ljeta gospodnjeg