[BIZTPOL] Amerikai Egyesült Államok, Kanada

  • Ha nem vagy kibékülve az alapértelmezettnek beállított sötét sablonnal, akkor a korábbi ígéretnek megfelelően bármikor átválthatsz a korábbi világos színekkel dolgozó kinézetre.

    Ehhez görgess a lap aljára és a baloldalon keresd a HTKA Dark feliratú gombot. Kattints rá, majd a megnyíló ablakban válaszd a HTKA Light lehetőséget. Választásod a böngésződ elmenti cookie-ba, így amikor legközelebb érkezel ezt a műveletsort nem kell megismételned.
  • Az elmúlt időszak tapasztalatai alapján házirendet kapott a topic.

    Ezen témában - a fórumon rendhagyó módon - az oldal üzemeltetője saját álláspontja, meggyőződése alapján nem enged bizonyos véleményeket, mivel meglátása szerint az káros a járványhelyzet enyhítését célzó törekvésekre.

    Kérünk, hogy a vírus veszélyességét kétségbe vonó, oltásellenes véleményed más platformon fejtsd ki. Nálunk ennek nincs helye. Az ilyen hozzászólásokért 1 alkalommal figyelmeztetés jár, majd folytatása esetén a témáról letiltás. Arra is kérünk, hogy a fórum más témáiba ne vigyétek át, mert azért viszont már a fórum egészéről letiltás járhat hosszabb-rövidebb időre.

  • Az elmúlt időszak tapasztalatai alapján frissített házirendet kapott a topic.

    --- VÁLTOZÁS A MODERÁLÁSBAN ---

    A források, hírek preferáltak. Azoknak, akik veszik a fáradságot és összegyűjtik ezeket a főként harcokkal, a háború jelenlegi állásával és haditechnika szempontjából érdekes híreket, (mindegy milyen oldali) forrásokkal alátámasztják és bonuszként legalább a címet egy google fordítóba berakják, azoknak ismételten köszönjük az áldozatos munkáját és további kitartást kívánunk nekik!

    Ami nem a topik témájába vág vagy akár csak erősebb hangnemben is kerül megfogalmazásra, az valamilyen formában szankcionálva lesz

    Minden olyan hozzászólásért ami nem hír, vagy szorosan a konfliktushoz kapcsolódó vélemény / elemzés azért instant 3 nap topic letiltás jár. Aki pedig ezzel trükközne és folytatná másik topicban annak 2 hónap fórum ban a jussa.

    Az új szabályzat teljes szövege itt olvasható el.

MZ/X

Well-Known Member
2021. május 27.
752
3 542
93
A Fehér Ház megváltoztatta Biden „szemét” megjegyzésének átiratát – AP (RT)

A Fehér Ház Sajtóiroda megváltoztatta Joe Biden elnök azon megjegyzésének átiratát, amelyben Donald Trump republikánus jelölt támogatóit „szemétnek” nevezte – jelentette pénteken az Associated Press.
A gyorsíró iroda által készített és a hírügynökség által idézett első átirat szerint Biden azt mondta egy latin csoportnak: „Az egyetlen szemét, amit ott lebegni látok, az a támogatói – az övé –,a latinok démonizálása felfoghatatlan, és ez nem amerikai.”
A nyilvánosság számára közzétett változat azonban a többes számú „támogatók” (supporters) helyett a birtokos „támogató” (supporter’s) használja – vagyis személyesen Hinchcliffe-re vonatkozna. Egy későbbi nyilatkozatában Biden fenntartotta, hogy ez volt szavainak jelentése.
Az AP idézett egy belső e-mailt, amelyet a Fehér Ház gyorsíróinak vezetője küldött a Sajtóirodának, amelyben az egyoldalú változtatás okozta „protokollsértés és a jegyzőkönyv sérthetetlenségének megsértése” miatt panaszkodik, amelyet az üzenet szerint a sajtószolgálat az elnökkel folytatott egyeztetést követően írt.
„Ha eltérés van az értelmezésben, a Sajtóiroda dönthet úgy, hogy visszatartja az átiratot, de nem szerkesztheti önállóan” – áll az e-mailben. A tisztviselő állítólag megjegyezte, hogy most ellentmondás van az Országos Levéltárhoz kapott átirat és a Sajtóiroda által a nagyközönség számára közölt között.
Elise Stefanik és James Comer republikánus képviselők az eset kivizsgálását sürgették. A Fehér Ház jogtanácsosának, Edward Siskelnek szerdán küldött levelükben azzal vádolták a Fehér Házat, hogy Biden szavai „hamis átiratátának" nyilvánosságra hozása az 1978-as elnöki nyilvántartási törvény megsértése lehetett.
 

Pogány

Well-Known Member
2018. április 26.
21 719
72 075
113
  • Hűha
Reactions: Kim Philby

sixtus

Well-Known Member
2022. február 22.
2 519
18 744
113

Nem tudom...Usa...nincs mit hozzá fűznöm...
Eközben New York Cityben!

Ki tudod hozni a majmot a dzsungelből, de a majomból a dzsungelt soha!
 
  • Tetszik
Reactions: Kim Philby

enzo

Well-Known Member
2014. augusztus 4.
14 415
36 426
113
Elővigyázatosságból készültségbe helyezték a Nemzeti Gárda egy részét Washington szövetségi államban helyi idő szerint pénteken, készülve arra, hogy esetleg zavargások törhetnek ki a jövő keddi választásokkal összefüggésben.

Egyszerűen lehetne csalásbiztos és nyomon követhető, visszakereshető választási rendszert csinálni. Az USA-nak erre nem futja. Egy banánköztársaság szégyenkezne.

Ha Trump nyer talán kisebb zavargásokkal megússzák, mint 2016-ban, de ha a már most nyilvánvaló kolosszális csalásokkal Kamala nyer, akkor tényleg lehet balhé. De lehet, hogy ez is a cél, hogy Trumpot végre bebörtönözhessék, és minden eddiginél nagyobb crackdown-t rendezhessenek "a demokráciájuk ellenségei", a "fehér szupremacisták", "hazai terroristák" ellen.
 

perceptron

Well-Known Member
2023. június 15.
6 676
13 983
113
Egyszerűen lehetne csalásbiztos és nyomon követhető, visszakereshető választási rendszert csinálni. Az USA-nak erre nem futja. Egy banánköztársaság szégyenkezne.

Ha Trump nyer talán kisebb zavargásokkal megússzák, mint 2016-ban, de ha a már most nyilvánvaló kolosszális csalásokkal Kamala nyer, akkor tényleg lehet balhé. De lehet, hogy ez is a cél, hogy Trumpot végre bebörtönözhessék, és minden eddiginél nagyobb crackdown-t rendezhessenek "a demokráciájuk ellenségei", a "fehér szupremacisták", "hazai terroristák" ellen.
Ugyan már, ez nem egy európai kisállam.
Itt 400 millió (!) fegyver van magánkézben, elképzelhetetlen egy tömeges megtorlás stb.

Emellett a 10 US Code Section 375 és 18 USC § 1385 (a.k.a. Posse Comitatus) együtt az összes szövetségi fegyvernem - sans Coast Guard, akinek az a dolga - limitálja belföldi rendfenntartó célú bevetesuket.
A kivételek közé tartozik 10 USC § 251-255 (Insurrection Act - felkelés) és pár hasonló. Ehhez persze az is kellene, hogy egyértelmű legyen a helyzet, nem csak tüntetések stb, máskülönben a fegyvereseknel többségben lévő Trump szavazók szinte biztosan nem lépnének fel egyszerű tüntetők ellen.

Nem túl valószínű, hogy ezt ma már képesek lennének összehozni, ahhoz túlságosan is nyilvánvaló ma már a szövetségi kormányzati, a corporate-warmongering elit és a deep state osszefonodasa és mindennapos, nyílt manipulációja mindennek.
 

perceptron

Well-Known Member
2023. június 15.
6 676
13 983
113
Opinion
Commentary

The Three Reasons Harris Will Lose the Election

Traditional Democrats are deserting the party, she was unprepared, and she has no clear message.


By Kenneth L. Khachigian
Oct. 31, 2024 12:46 pm ET

First, a historic Democratic voting bloc will desert her in margins the polls haven’t anticipated. Hundreds of thousands of traditional Democrats who came of age in postwar America can’t visualize Ms. Harris walking in the footsteps of their legendary party leaders who preceded her—icons like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. She suffers from a stature gap that a billion dollars of advertising can’t change, and even if voters don’t mark their ballot for Donald Trump, it will be to his benefit.

The vice president had nearly four years to rise to levels of national and international prominence—to expand her vitae beyond being Joe Biden’s choice to fill a designated slot. She squandered that opportunity, or perhaps Mr. Biden and his inner circle didn’t loosen the leash. Either way the result is the same: She isn’t the person who matches the moment.

Second, Ms. Harris was unprepared to enter the rough and tumble of national politics and at the 11th hour relies on being propped up, as she has throughout her career, by patrons—Barack Obama, his operatives and a national media that is predominantly desperate to prevent Mr. Trump from re-entering office. Ms. Harris is a victim of her own success through moving up the political ladder without being fully tested by challenge and conflict.

Hence, while she promotes her career path as a tough prosecutor, when it came to time to face the national jury, she abdicated to the teleprompter and friendly interviewers. The canary in the coal mine for her impending defeat is the veiled betrayal by those who engineered the putsch that shoved Ms. Harris through the door while forcing Mr. Biden out. They ridicule the vice president’s odd-ball answers in televised interviews as retreats into “Word Salad City.”

Third, when she responded on “The View” that there wasn’t a thing that came to her mind that she would “have done differently than President Biden,” Ms. Harris confirmed the substance-free foundation of her cause by placing no distance between herself and the failures of her partner. Either she couldn’t find a way to escape her baked-in California Bay Area political culture, or she was flummoxed by her own slippery evasions from left-wing orthodoxy. Nevertheless, there is an empty hole where potential leaders of the free world must have a strong message. She has filled it with the bizarre notion that if she loses, Mr. Trump would establish fascism in America.

That makes for an unserious person seeking to navigate an uncertain world and fragile economy. Last-minute crazy charges and celebrity parades of Bruce Springsteen, Willie Nelson, Beyoncé and Michelle Obama merely reinforce the Potemkin village front of the unraveling Harris-Walz campaign.

Ms. Harris’s lack of stature, unreadiness for prime time, and content-confused narrative are why voters will opt for a former president with a proven record over an untested swimmer without a life vest.

Mr. Khachigian was chief speechwriter to Ronald Reagan and an aide to Richard Nixon. He is author of the memoir “Behind Closed Doors: In the Room With Reagan and Nixon.”
 
  • Tetszik
Reactions: gatya

perceptron

Well-Known Member
2023. június 15.
6 676
13 983
113
Review & Outlook

How Risky Is a Trump Second Term?
He’d slow the left’s coercive march, but his policies are likely to be a jump ball.

By The Editorial Board

Oct. 31, 2024 6:02 pm ET

Editor's note: The Wall Street Journal hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928. Our tradition is to sum up the candidacies of the major party nominees in separate editorials, and on Thursday we assessed Kamala Harris. Here we take up Donald Trump.

What a presidential choice America’s two major political parties have offered the country. The Democrat is a California progressive, elevated at the last minute, who looks unprepared for a world on fire. The Republican is Donald Trump, who still denies he lost in 2020 and has done little to reassure swing voters that his second term will be calmer than his rancorous first.

***
The best argument for a Trump victory is that it would be suitable penance for the many Democratic failures at home and abroad. A spending-fueled inflation that shrank real wages. Adversaries on the march. Abuses of regulatory power and law enforcement. If Ms. Harris wins, progressives will claim vindication and pursue more of the same—perhaps checked somewhat by a GOP Senate. A Harris defeat would slow the forced march left, at least for a time.

A second argument is that Mr. Trump’s first term was better than expected. His leadership was often chaotic and caustic, and he rolled through multiple chiefs of staff and security advisers. But voters recall that at home he presided over a strong pre-Covid economy spurred by deregulation and tax reform. His judicial nominations were excellent.

Abroad he broke many diplomatic rules and his praise for dictators was disconcerting. But enemies stayed quiet on his watch, he kept Iran in a box, and the Abraham Accords began a new era of cooperation between Israel and the Sunni Arab states. He renegotiated Nafta rather than blowing it up as he had threatened

The authoritarian rule that Democrats and the press predicted never appeared. Mr. Trump was too undisciplined, and his attention span too short, to stay on one message much less stage a coup. America’s checks and balances held, and Democrats benefited from the political backlash.

Ah, but what about the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021? Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election was appalling, and for many Americans is disqualifying for a second term. We thought he shouldn’t win the nomination again.

But Democrats helped to revive his fortunes with their unprecedented prosecutions and other excesses. Democrats made Trump II possible as much as GOP primary voters. If Mr. Trump wins, it will be a comeback for the ages, and testament to his resilience and ability to speak for Americans who feel unrepresented.

***
Opponents say a second Trump term poses too great a risk given his character flaws, and it surely wouldn’t be a return to “normalcy.” We don’t buy the fascism fears, and we doubt Democrats really do either. Our own concern is whether he can successfully address the country’s urgent problems. Most second presidential terms are disappointing, or worse, and Mr. Trump hasn’t mapped out a clear agenda beyond controlling the border and unleashing U.S. energy production.

One risk now, unlike his first term, is the lack of a unified or even coherent GOP domestic platform. Mr. Trump inherited a reform agenda from Paul Ryan in 2017, and his policy successes were traditional GOP priorities of deregulation, originalist judges and tax cuts.

Mr. Trump has instincts but no clear philosophy of government, and his second term will be more of a policy jump ball. Most of his 2017 tax reform will expire at the end of 2025, and he has already complicated renewal by proposing tax giveaways that will make pro-growth provisions harder to finance.

He’s promising more deregulation, which is a big plus. But he wants much higher and across-the-board tariffs, which will introduce uncertainty that would slow growth. His second term could be a struggle between free-market advisers like those in his first term, and the protectionist, industrial policy, pro-Big Labor voices who surround JD Vance.

If Mr. Trump goes with the latter, the GOP will no longer be a party of free markets and smaller government. This is one way the U.S. turns into slow-growth Europe where the major parties are all statist.

On foreign policy, who knows? The former President understands deterrence far better than Ms. Harris, and he is likely to revive pressure on Iran. But he is above all a deal-maker, and he will court Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and Xi Jinping to uncertain ends.

Much will depend on the advisers he chooses for State and Defense, and whether they can dissuade Mr. Trump from lousy ideas after he speaks with Sen. Rand Paul. We spent much of his first term fielding calls from Congress and White House aides urging editorials to head off the wilder impulses Mr. Trump floated behind the scenes.

Mr. Trump also surrounds himself with grifters and provocateurs who flatter him, and many have new prominence in Trump World as his son Don Jr. gains influence. Think Tucker Carlson instead of son-in-law Jared Kushner. This could lead in destructive policy directions. Mike Pence’s influence on policy and personnel will be missed.

***
This election should be an opening for a GOP sweep à la 1980. The polls say Americans want change, and they are unhappy with the results of progressive governance.

But if Mr. Trump wins it is likely to be narrowly, and his campaign hasn’t done much to expand his coalition. Even after the first assassination attempt, he couldn’t offer a unifying message in his GOP convention speech. Mr. Trump’s second term could result in four more years of divisive partisan warfare.

Democrats and the press will feed the rancor, as they aim to sweep Congress in 2026 and retake the White House in 2028 as the country tires of the second MAGA interregnum. This is the risk Republicans took in nominating Mr. Trump for a third time, instead of a younger conservative who could serve two terms and build a new center-right majority.

A second Trump term poses risks, but the question as ever is compared to what? Voters can gamble on the tumult of Trump, or the continued ascendancy of the Democratic left. We wish it was a better choice, but that’s democracy.
 

perceptron

Well-Known Member
2023. június 15.
6 676
13 983
113
The War on Gaza Is an Outrage. Sitting Out the Election Could Make It Worse.

Either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump is going to win the presidency. Not voting, or voting third-party, risks putting Palestinians in even more danger.

Katha Pollitt

Trump and Netanyahu
Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands at the Israel museum in Jerusalem.(Sebastian Scheiner, File/AP Photo)


Sometimes it’s hard to vote for the Democrats, and Bill Clinton certainly isn’t making it easier. In Michigan on Wednesday, he gave a pretty good, standard-issue speech about the need to protect the Constitution from Donald Trump, whose only concern is personal loyalty to himself. Then he pivoted to Gaza, and it might as well have been Benjamin Netanyahu up there on the podium: Jews were there first, “Judea and Samaria,” Hamas’s human shields, etc. He also pointed out that “Kamala Harris has said she’ll try to negotiate an end to the violence, an end to the killing,” but that was lost in the outrage that naturally followed his remarks—outrage I share. The deaths of many thousands of children, the destruction of hospitals and whole neighborhoods, the starving of the population—there is no excuse for such war crimes.


Still, Clinton isn’t running for president. He hasn’t been president for a quarter of a century. He was great when he explained Obamacare to a puzzled populace at the 2008 Democratic convention, but since then he mostly seems to pop up to injure the chances of women running for president—notably including his wife. (Remember how often Hillary Clinton was taxed with the sexual sins of her husband?)

But this is 2024. It would be a grave mistake, a world-historical mistake that could potentially outlast the lifetime of everyone reading this, to withhold your vote from Vice President Harris next week—whether it’s because of endorsements from Liz and Dick Cheney, among other conservatives, Harris’s owning a gun, or Clinton’s speech in Michigan.

Nor should any of us withhold our vote because of Gaza. Terrible as is the ongoing slaughter, which has now extended to Lebanon, enabling the election of Trump, either by not voting or by supporting a third-party candidate, is not the way to protest. Trump, after all, is completely on Israel’s side in its war against Palestinians. As president, he moved the capital of Israel to Jerusalem—an incredibly provocative gesture, as he surely knew. He calls himself Israel’s “protector.” He has told Netanyahu to “do what you have to do.”

Netanyahu, by the way, clearly supports Trump, as do the large majority of Israelis. In our two-party system, Harris has to be judged against the alternative—and there’s simply no way that Trump would be better for Palestinians. Given what we know about his anti-Muslim views—remember the Muslim ban?—he will almost certainly be worse.

On October 25, a group of 100 Arizona Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian leaders released a statement I hope everyone will read. Its authors warn against Trump’s belligerence, but also see signs of hope in Harris’s leadership:

Multiple media reports state that Harris’s national security advisors are open to re-evaluating policy and conditioning aid to Israel. On October 13th, the same day the administration threatened to re-evaluate military support if Israel did not improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza and reduce civilian casualties in the next 30 days, Harris tweeted: “Israel must urgently do more to facilitate the flow of aid to those in need. Civilians must be protected and have access to food, water, and medicine. International humanitarian law must be respected.” In Michigan the other day, Harris expressed clear empathy for the suffering of the people of Palestine and Lebanon and the impact of this devastation on Arab Americans. She pledged to do “everything in her power” as President to end the war in Gaza, end the suffering of Palestinians there, and achieve “a future of security and dignity for all people in the region.”

Current Issue​

Cover of November 2024 Issue
November 2024 Issue

And it isn’t about just Harris and Trump. The letter points out that Harris’s “decisions as President will be shaped by the larger Democratic Party coalition that includes a growing force pushing for Palestinian human rights.” They note that in Arizona, where the letter was drafted, the Democratic Party has passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire. “Every single member of Congress who has publicly called for a ceasefire in Gaza or for an arms embargo is a Democrat,” the letter elaborates. “The major national unions, civil rights groups, and progressive organizations that have called for a halt to military aid to Israel are all working to elect Harris.”

And the Republican Party, the authors write, “offers zero opposition to unconditional support for Israel and zero support for Palestinian human rights. Instead, Republicans urge the US to join Israel in bombing Iran, call to ‘bounce the rubble in Gaza’ and ‘kill ’em all,’ and would likely support the Israeli far right’s drive to annex Gaza and the West Bank.”

Are you thinking of voting for Jill Stein or Cornel West in order to punish the Democrats and move them to the left? That isn’t what happened when lefty Dems voted for Nader in 2000 and helped defeat Gore. Instead, as the Arizona letter argues, it marginalized Nader and his followers too. You hear a lot from people who regret that vote today, but who says, “If only I had voted for Nader’? Same with voting for Stein today. When she helped throw the 2016 election to Trump, progressives got nothing in return. She simply vanished for another four years.

There are those who see their vote as self-expression, “voting my conscience,” “refusing to compromise.” But that’s not what voting is. Voting is not a statement of personal principles. It’s a forced choice between two alternatives, one of which is somewhat better than the other, and one of which is going to win. If you don’t participate, you’re simply helping the wrong side. As Noam Chomsky, no liberal sheep, argues, you vote for the lesser evil because it’s less evil. You don’t end with that vote; you start with it.
 

perceptron

Well-Known Member
2023. június 15.
6 676
13 983
113
  • Dühítő
Reactions: gatya

Pogány

Well-Known Member
2018. április 26.
21 719
72 075
113
Nem túl valószínű, hogy ezt ma már képesek lennének összehozni, ahhoz túlságosan is nyilvánvaló ma már a szövetségi kormányzati, a corporate-warmongering elit és a deep state osszefonodasa és mindennapos, nyílt manipulációja mindennek
Az a gond, ha belenézel a történelembe, hogyha nem ment tovább a manipulátorkodás, akkor nyílt erőszakra váltottak mindig. Szóval én adnék esélyt rá.