America Votes!

[Bmflar]

pred 1 minuto, DAMI34 pravi:

Trump je naš

Trump je vaš,

base pa moje 

[DAMI34]

pred 1 minuto, HD-Dyna pravi:

Trump je vaš,

base pa moje 

nehi s to politično propagando!!!

Base so nacionalni interes!!!!!

[Bmflar]

Pravkar, DAMI34 pravi:

nehi s to politično propagando!!!

Base so nacionalni interes!!!!!

Brigi se zase, jest nisn tramp 

Base so pa lokalni interes 

[DAMI34]

pred 1 minuto, HD-Dyna pravi:

Brigi se zase, jest nisn tramp 

Base so pa lokalni interes 

nisi tramp, 

ti bo pa zrasu vamp,

če boš vse base pojedu,

in nas ignoriral pri obedu

 

[Bmflar]

Pravkar, DAMI34 pravi:

nisi tramp, 

ti bo pa zrasu vamp,

če boš vse base pojedu,

in nas ignoriral pri obedu

Pesnik je ratu naš Dami,

neki ga prav hudo muči,

si je zaželel moji salami,

da ne bo spet čuči mući 

[DAMI34]

pred 2 minutami, HD-Dyna pravi:

Pesnik je ratu naš Dami,

neki ga prav hudo muči,

si je zaželel moji salami,

da ne bo spet čuči mući 

kje sta pa Melania in Trump v tej tvoji pesmici?

zmaga, zmaga, zmaga

[Bmflar]

Pravkar, DAMI34 pravi:

kje sta pa Melania in Trump v tej tvoji pesmici?

zmaga, zmaga, zmaga

Praznujeta zmago - seksata v preddverju bele hiše 

[....]

Dokaz več, da je bolj pomemben boj za glasove v ozadju. In v tem je bil očitno Trump uspešen, medtem ko je Clintonova stavila na ljudi, saj je bila 100%, da se ne rabi ukvarjati z glasovi v ozadju, ker so ji zagotovljeni, a se je uštela. Ne morem verjeti, kako so jo prinesli okoli  

[DAMI34]

pred 4 minutami, Arzen pravi:

Dokaz več, da je bolj pomemben boj za glasove v ozadju. In v tem je bil očitno Trump uspešen, medtem ko je Clintonova stavila na ljudi, saj je bila 100%, da se ne rabi ukvarjati z glasovi v ozadju, ker so ji zagotovljeni, a se je uštela. Ne morem verjeti, kako so jo prinesli okoli  

po mojem so bili krivi "strici iz ozadja"

 

[Cartman]

11 minutes ago, Arzen said:

Dokaz več, da je bolj pomemben boj za glasove v ozadju. In v tem je bil očitno Trump uspešen, medtem ko je Clintonova stavila na ljudi, saj je bila 100%, da se ne rabi ukvarjati z glasovi v ozadju, ker so ji zagotovljeni, a se je uštela. Ne morem verjeti, kako so jo prinesli okoli  

 

ne razumem. Elektorski glasovi so bili podeljeni na podlagi volilnih izidov. Trumpa so izvolili ljudje, drug ga ne more. IMO je poprečn amer pač mal ksenofoben, in upa/si želi, da imal trump prav. da so rešitve,v resnici enostavne. 

 

drgač pa za basoljubce

 

premrl.si

 

 

Popravljeno November 9, 2016. Popravil Cartman

[....]

pred 53 minutami, Cartman pravi:

 

ne razumem. Elektorski glasovi so bili podeljeni na podlagi volilnih izidov. Trumpa so izvolili ljudje, drug ga ne more. IMO je poprečn amer pač mal ksenofoben, in upa/si želi, da imal trump prav. da so rešitve,v resnici enostavne. 

 

drgač pa za basoljubce

 

premrl.si

 

 

Ja, ampak če v zvezni državi voli 51% ljudi za npr. Trumpa, potem ne gre 51% vseh elektorskih glasov zanj ampak vseh 100%. Tu se je Hillary zafrknila. Zanimiv je pogled na listo držav, ki jih je pridobil Trump. To sicer ne velja za vse države, a  velja za večino. Potem je tu malce čudna politika podelitve elektorskih glasov, npr. neka država ima 500.000 prebivalcev, a pridejo 3 glasovi na njo, druga ima 15mil, pa pride 29 glasov, pa si izračunaj povprečje prebivalcev na 1 elektorski glas. V 21 državah pa ni treba elektorjem glasovati tako kot glasujejo volivci in sicer demokrat se lahko premisli in glasuje za republikanca in obratno. V glavnem, ni nujno, da nekdo dobi večino glasov, kar spomnite se kako so nategnili Al Gore-a.

Ona je dejansko verjela, da ima toliko prednosti že pri elektorjih, da bodo glasovali za njo, navsezadnje so še republikanci bili proti Trumpu, vsaj sodeč po medijih.  Se je pa izkazalo, kako zlahka se da ponarediti ankete in kako so se zafrknili, saj so zgleda na teren privabili tiste, ki ponavadi ne glasujejo in tiste, ki so za Trumpa a niso mislili iti volit. Me pa jezi, kako butasti so naši mediji, tako rtv kot 24kur, ki so dajali toliko poudarka tem volitvam in ki so tako pljuvali po Trumpu. 

 

Popravljeno November 9, 2016. Popravil Arzen

[Bmflar]

[Cartman]

51 minutes ago, Arzen said:

Ja, ampak če v zvezni državi voli 51% ljudi za npr. Trumpa, potem ne gre 51% vseh elektorskih glasov zanj ampak vseh 100%. Tu se je Hillary zafrknila. Zanimiv je pogled na listo držav, ki jih je pridobil Trump. To sicer ne velja za vse države, a  velja za večino. Potem je tu malce čudna politika podelitve elektorskih glasov, npr. neka država ima 500.000 prebivalcev, a pridejo 3 glasovi na njo, druga ima 15mil, pa pride 29 glasov, pa si izračunaj povprečje prebivalcev na 1 elektorski glas. V 21 državah pa ni treba elektorjem glasovati tako kot glasujejo volivci in sicer demokrat se lahko premisli in glasuje za republikanca in obratno. V glavnem, ni nujno, da nekdo dobi večino glasov, kar spomnite se kako so nategnili Al Gore-a.

Ona je dejansko verjela, da ima toliko prednosti že pri elektorjih, da bodo glasovali za njo, navsezadnje so še republikanci bili proti Trumpu, vsaj sodeč po medijih.  Se je pa izkazalo, kako zlahka se da ponarediti ankete in kako so se zafrknili, saj so zgleda na teren privabili tiste, ki ponavadi ne glasujejo in tiste, ki so za Trumpa a niso mislili iti volit. Me pa jezi, kako butasti so naši mediji, tako rtv kot 24kur, ki so dajali toliko poudarka tem volitvam in ki so tako pljuvali po Trumpu. 

 

No ja. Split vote imata samo dve švoh državi. Kot po pravilu sta zmagovalcu  elektorske glasove oddali soglasno.   Nebraska 5 za trumpa in Maine 4 za hillary. Wisconsin michigan in pensylvanio, 46 glasov. je klintonca spušila, kar ni uspelu nobenmu demokratu po dukakisu. Moški v teh državah so se pač poistovetili s trumpom....... 

wiki ma super poštimano stran o volitvah, zelo fajn je videt severnovzhodno obalo, kako se je obarvala rdeče. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

[izibajker]

pred 2 urami, HD-Dyna pravi:

Dejstvo je, da je Hilari vojna hujskačica in zelo zamerljiva oseba, pa še Billa bi morala abjajcen, da bi bil lohka "prva dama"....

Dejstvo je, da je Trump mal pajaca ( večinoma mislim, da je vse to igrano, za predvolilni šov ), ampak ženo ma dobro, pa še s Putinom sta v boljših odnosih, kar tudi nekaj pomeni.

Dejstvo je, da je Trump manjše zlo od zamerljive babe s stalno surlo 

Dejstvo je, da Ameri ne znajo najt pravega kandidata za predsednika, ker jim ustrezajo taki.

Dejstvo je, da smo mi isti, kaj pa je drugega to poziranje po tovarnah in z malimi Miškami 

Prvo in drugo dejstvo sta za pirovske debate ob šanku. Nimata pa nobene dodane vrednosti v Trumpovem političnem analfabetizmu. Hilary je politike bolj vešča, tudi ne verjamem, da je večja vojna hujskačica kot bo Trump. Malo bo sicer glumil "izolacionizem", ne bo se pa odrekel nobeni interesni sferi, v kateri ameri mešajo drek že dolga desetletja..

Se pa v celoti strinjam s tvojim zadnjim dejstvom. Naša barbika je tudi prepoln samega sebe (ok, malo bolj sicer obvlada leporečenje kot bodoči usa kolega), odznotraj pa ga je ena sama beda in praznina...

[....]

pred 1 uro, Cartman pravi:

No ja. Split vote imata samo dve švoh državi. Kot po pravilu sta zmagovalcu  elektorske glasove oddali soglasno.   Nebraska 5 za trumpa in Maine 4 za hillary. Wisconsin michigan in pensylvanio, 46 glasov. je klintonca spušila, kar ni uspelu nobenmu demokratu po dukakisu. Moški v teh državah so se pač poistovetili s trumpom....... 

wiki ma super poštimano stran o volitvah, zelo fajn je videt severnovzhodno obalo, kako se je obarvala rdeče. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

Uh zanimiv link si pripopal. Sem šel gledat še za letošnjega, zelo podobna situacija. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Mi je pa zanimivo, da sta Kalifornija in severovzhodna obala, kjer je veliko elitnih šol in posledično tudi veliko visokošolskih učenjakov, obarvani v modro. Tako leta 2000 kot 2016. Edino res veliko območje, ki sta ga osvojila tako Bush kot Trump je pa Texas, no tudi Florida je tukaj. In ravno Florida velja za eno najbolj odločilnih območij. Torej je Trump pridobil ogromno delavcev na svojo stran. Demokrati že cmizdrijo, da bi moral iti Sanders v boj proti Trumpu. Kakorkoli že, mislim da Trump ne bo tako glasen kot je bil v predvolilnih bojih, itak je spet bil samo show, na koncu bo pa isti k**** kot je bil Nixon, G.W. Bush,...

 

Drugače pa ja, očitno je, da so moški še vedno "proti" ženskam. Črnc...ajde to še gre, ženska? No go. Sploh pa ne taka krava kot je Hillary. Si videl, da nekateri že pišejo, da bi se bolje odrezala žena od Obame?  

Popravljeno November 9, 2016. Popravil Arzen

[KARMEN1]

Si bo končno kupil novo lasuljo?

[Bambi61]

Jaz sem pa vesel da bom lahko končno v Beli hiši slovensko govoril!!

[Nearrain]

2 hours ago, izibajker said:

Prvo in drugo dejstvo sta za pirovske debate ob šanku. Nimata pa nobene dodane vrednosti v Trumpovem političnem analfabetizmu. Hilary je politike bolj vešča, tudi ne verjamem, da je večja vojna hujskačica kot bo Trump. Malo bo sicer glumil "izolacionizem", ne bo se pa odrekel nobeni interesni sferi, v kateri ameri mešajo drek že dolga desetletja..

Se pa v celoti strinjam s tvojim zadnjim dejstvom. Naša barbika je tudi prepoln samega sebe (ok, malo bolj sicer obvlada leporečenje kot bodoči usa kolega), odznotraj pa ga je ena sama beda in praznina...

Ocitno ne poznas "uspehov" njene politicne vescosti.

Tok koliko je ta zensce naredilo sranja v njeni politicni karieri jo bo tezko kdorkoli v prihodnosti.

A ni zanimivo, da si pomemben del vladujoce politicne garniture, katera se na vse kriplje "bojuje" proti terorizmu, siri "demokracijo", kandidiras za predsednika US in OGROMEN del sredstev tvoje predvolilne kampanije prihaja iz drzav Bliznjega vzhoda (Saudske arabije, Katarja, Bahraina), katere odkrito podpirajo, oborozujejo ISIS in so solski primer diskriminacije, rasizma in diktature. 

 

 

Have We Just Avoided World War 3? This Is Why Trump Wont “Push The Button”

So to many people’s great surprise Donald Trump has just been elected President. I have to say that I think neither him or Clinton would make fit Presidents BUT I do think that this unexpected twist in the political world may just have helped to steer us clear of World War 3. Here is an article to explain why:

If you let the media tell it, Trump is guaranteed to start World War III – or worse, full-out nuclear war – if he becomes president

But is that really true? Would Trump really “push the button”?

It’s not likely.

We can’t predict the future of course, but based on Trump’s stated foreign policy stances and his track record as an international businessman, he’s actually the least likely candidate to cause large-scale conflict.

Let’s take a look at the facts.

The Truth About Trump’s Foreign Policy

Here’s the big picture regarding Trump’s previous statements on US military actions throughout the world.

On the Middle East

As you probably know, the Middle East has been a hotbed of fighting and conflict for decades. And the US has played a major role in much of it.

What are Trump’s ideas on the matter?

For one, he has criticized the invasion of Iraq, mainly for turning a bad situation worse. When you consider that the fall of Saddam Hussein allowed room for ISIS to form, you realize that he was actually the lesser of two evils in that situation.

Sure, he wasn’t very nice, but at least he was holding the region together for the time being.

Same story in Libya and now Syria, two more conflicts that Trump disagrees with. The truth is, Libya is a lot more volatile now than it was with Gaddafi at the helm, and Syria’s president Assad is one of the few forces making a real effort against ISIS.

To recap, Trump is not cool with America’s constant involvement in the Middle East. He wants the region to be stable.

Why are we being told this guy is so dangerous again?

The only people who have to fear Trump is ISIS. He’s called for a combined and concentrated effort against the extremist group, eliminating them once and for all.

On Our Allies

We looked at Trump’s opinions on our enemies. But how about our “allies”?

Well, there’s Saudi Arabia, who the US continues to support militarily despite their record of promoting terrorism and violating the human rights of their citizens.

Why exactly do we continue to ally ourselves with a government that regularly beheads people over small crimes?

And if we are going to fight their battles, shouldn’t they be paying their fair share? The truth is, they don’t. Neither of these issues have been lost on Trump, who’s criticized Saudi Arabia on several issues.

You’ll notice a theme regarding Trump and his insistence that countries pay their way. Why should the US be responsible for funding the bulk of NATO? Not only is the program obsolete (it was created to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War), its other members are rich European countries who could certainly afford to chip in more than what they do.

Then there’s Japan and South Korea. For quite some time, both of these countries have relied heavily on the American military to protect them.

But they’re rich countries, as Trump has pointed out. They could easily field their own military. And if they’re not willing, shouldn’t they foot the bill for America’s help?

Obviously the thought of pulling American troops from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East is going to ruffle some feathers. But many of these agreements do not serve our interests. They also make it a lot more likely for the US to be embroiled in another World War, were it to happen.

On the other hand, Trump has questioned the vilification of Russia by the US and Europe.

If WW3 goes down, it’s likely going to involve Russia. Easing the tensions between our two nations would go a long way to alleviating that threat. Especially considering they share plenty of mutual goals with America, like defeating ISIS and stabilizing the Middle East.

On Our Military

Wait, hasn’t Trump boasted how strong he’s going to make our military? That’s right. He even said it’d be so big and powerful that “no one will mess with us”.

Surely that means he’s a brutal warmonger focused on world domination?

Not really. As we saw above, the US military has a lot of responsibilities. We have bases all over the world, decades of ongoing conflicts throughout the Middle East, and obligations to dozens of different countries.

Being stretched that thin, trying to be in a million places at once, weakens our military as a whole.

When viewed in conjunction with the rest of Trump’s foreign policy proposal, you’ll see that a “strong military” means one that’s more focused and defensive, rather than the interventionist mess we have now.

We have more than enough military power to protect the country. Where it gets shaky is when we’ve got troops in South Korea, fighter jets in Syria, and money going to Ukraine.

Another major problem in the US military is inefficiency. Many projects – whether it’s a new piece of technology or toilet seats – end up way over-budget and past schedule.

This has been one of Trump’s strengths as a businessman – getting things done on time and without spending too much. It’s an area he’s prided himself on for decades.

That doesn’t mean he’s cheap. The man spares no expense on many of his building projects. But he doesn’t overpay. He doesn’t waste.

Cutting that wasteful spending out of America’s military budget would help us get the most out of what we have.

In fact, between more efficient spending and less foreign intervention, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to believe that Trump’s proposed policies could actually cut the military budget – while at the same time making the military itself stronger as a whole.

By the way, less meddling in the affairs of other countries would leave our potential enemies with less reason to attack us – or “mess with us” – in the first place.

Trump’s Experience with Foreign Leaders

The American citizens are tired of corrupt, ineffective politicians who do a lot of talking but not much solving. That’s one of the reason Trump is so appealing to tens of millions of people.

But his detractors hold this lack of political experience against him. They also claim his sometimes brash nature will rub foreign leaders the wrong way.

Let’s take a step back and re-examine.

The Trump Organization – the company that holds most of Trump’s assets – operates not only all over the United States, but in dozens of other countries around the globe.

That includes real estate from Uruguay to South Korea, hotels from Panama to Azerbaijan, and golf courses in Scotland, Dubai, and more.

With experience doing business internationally for years and years, do you really think Trump doesn’t know a thing or two about dealing with people from other countries?

Of course he does. He may insult his competition during the election cycle, but there’s no reason to expect he’d do the same to the president of China or Russia. If he did, it would’ve been a problem by now.

And do you really think the world “liked” every one of our past presidents? Of course not.

When it comes to geopolitics, it’s less about being liked as a person and more about your policies. And we’ve already seen how Trump’s policy would put the US in a lot safer place than they are today.

Trump Will Keep the Country Safe

Compare that to the other candidates. Hillary had a hand in many of the conflicts we talked about, including Iraq and Libya. She even called for a no-fly zone over Syria recently to stop Russia’s bombing of ISIS. Talk about trying to start World War III!

People have criticized Trump’s comments on waterboarding, yet Hillary actually oversaw the torture of hundreds of prisoners during her run as Secretary of the State. She’s already done worse than Trump could ever do.

Ted Cruz wants to “carpet bomb” ISIS, which would undoubtedly lead to thousands of civilian casualties. He’s yet another hawkish politician – just like the one’s we’ve grown sick of. And Kasich wants to arm Ukrainian rebels against Russia.

Trump’s policies are quite conservative by comparison. And more importantly, they put the interest of America and its citizens first.

That’s why Trump being President does not literally spell ‘The end of the world’

[Kmet2]

Najboljš prjatla 

[DAMI34]

Baje se Američani že množično selijo v Kanado. Razn Cher- ona gre baje na Jupiter

 

[Borutt]

Menda Melanija zahteva enako cena bencina v Sloveniji, kot je v Ameriki. Ali je zahtevala obratno. 

[....]

pred 1 minuto, Borutt pravi:

Menda Melanija zahteva enako cena bencina v Sloveniji, kot je v Ameriki. Ali je zahtevala obratno. 

Prej je zahtevala take policaje tudi v Sloveniji.  

 

[Borutt]

pred 2 minutami, Arzen pravi:

Prej je zahtevala take policaje tudi v Sloveniji.  

 

Ali pa obratno .

[Nearrain]

7 hours ago, Arzen said:

Dokaz več, da je bolj pomemben boj za glasove v ozadju. In v tem je bil očitno Trump uspešen, medtem ko je Clintonova stavila na ljudi, saj je bila 100%, da se ne rabi ukvarjati z glasovi v ozadju, ker so ji zagotovljeni, a se je uštela. Ne morem verjeti, kako so jo prinesli okoli  

Ocitno si kaksne druge volitve spremljal?

Hillary se je zgodilo ljudstvo. Kljub vsem njenim stricem iz odzadja in kljub maksimalno pristranskem porocanju velike vecine mainstream medijev niso uspeli preglasit nezadovoljstva ameriskega povprecneza. 

Trump je zmagal zaradi iz dveh razlogov . . .  

Ad1: vecina Americanov si zeli korenitih sprememb, ker imajo od Reaganove prezidenture naprej nadaljevanko v kateri vsake stiri leta potegnejo vedno krajsi konec

 Ad2: ker ni bilo Bernia Sandersa v velikem finalu

Obamo so izvolili iz podobnih razlogov, ker je bila velika napaka. Ta crna marioneta je naredila se vecje sranje od Bushev.

[polž]

tudi kilari puši

je popušila