Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

Ivanka sends her congratulations to the Prime Minister of the United “Kingston” shortly after Trump praised the Prince of “Whales.” These people are so utterly incompetent and embarrassing even on the smallest stuff. pic.twitter.com/Q5c6v00YYv

— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) 23. јул 2019.

disident wrote:

I love everything about this story.

So a #QAnon follower, believing he was on a mission from #Trump, murdered a Trump-supporting mobster in #StatenIsland (also known as NYC's Trumpistan) whom he believed to be a #deepstate agent undermining #POTUS. https://t.co/SDUzvpvGwH

— Eric Draitser (@stopimperialism) July 23, 2019

Filipenko wrote:Mislim, logika je debilna ma koga potpisivao ispod toga. Gotovo svako doba je bilo bolje od nekog ranijeg doba, to ne znaci da su svi u tom dobu zadovoljni ili da ne zele napredak i/ili promene.

Ljubav, med i duhovnost wrote:Дугорочно поражено, мислим, чак и кад је бележило победе у неком историјском периоду, на дуги рок је назадовало јер је заостајало у науци и привреди.

Ointagru Unartan wrote:

Gargamel wrote:
ničeg tu nema neizlečivog. samo je bila i ostala besmislena tvrdnja o "ekonomskoj anksioznosti" kao nekakvom ključnom faktoru u Trampovoj popularnosti.

To je tacno. Istrazivanja pokazuju da su oni koji tesko sastavljaju kraj sa krajem u vecem procentu glasali za Hilari (ceteris paribus), a da je glasanja za Trampa pre bilo povezano sa "kulturnom anksioznoscu" i predrasudama. Pouka? Demokrate bi trebalo borbu premeste sa polja koje odgovora njihovom protivniku (to jest sa politike identiteta) na polje koje njima odgovara, to jest na pitanje ekonomske ravnopravnosti. Nije tacno da Amerikance boli dupe za ekonomsku ravnopravnost, postoje istrazivanja i o tome: ukratko, Amerikanci misle da je stepen ravnopravnosti veci nego sto zaista jeste (to jest potcenjuju recimo razliku u bogatstvu izmedju 20% najsiromasnijih i 20% najbogatijih), a zeleli bi da raspodela bogatstva bude jos ravnopravnija. To sto ne glasaju na osnovu tih preferencija posledica je toga sto su u fokusu pitanja tipa da li dosao na red na zenu da bude predsednica, a sta su nama Rusi radili, i da li treba uvesti posebne WC-e za transrodne osobe. Zato bi Sanders imao sanse sa svojom porukom o socijalnoj pravdi.

As Donald Trump addressed a rightwing crowd in Washington on Tuesday, the audience roared in support – but it was a doctored onscreen display that ultimately took center stage.

At a student summit hosted by the conservative group Turning Point USA, the president stood before what looks, to the casual observer, very much like the US presidential seal. A thorough examination by the Washington Post, however, reveals some odd tweaks to the image.

First, the eagle has not one but two heads – making it look a lot like Russia’s coat of arms. And instead of holding arrows, as the bird does in the US seal, it’s holding golf clubs.

In other words, a proud presidential symbol was apparently reworked to shame Trump over two of the biggest targets of anti-Trump criticism – Russian involvement in the 2016 election and excessive golfing – and it was displayed behind the president for all to see.

How this happened remains a mystery. The Post spoke with a White House representative who said officials hadn’t seen the image in advance. A spokesperson for Turning Point USA, meanwhile, told the paper he was stumped as to the origins of the image, characterizing it as “a last-minute A/V mistake”. “I can’t figure out who did it yet,” the spokesman said, adding that he didn’t know where the image had come from.

Pelosi rebuffs Nadler on impeachment after Mueller flop


House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, only to be rebuffed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to four sources familiar with the discussions.

At a caucus meeting following the hotly anticipated testimony of special counsel Robert Mueller, Nadler suggested that several House committee chairs could begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump. Pelosi called the idea premature, said the sources.

Mueller's appearance was a disappointment to many Democrats, as the former FBI director stumbled at times, even seeming unsure of the contents of his 448-page report on Russian election interference and Trump's efforts to obstruct the investigation.

Pelosi convened the Democratic caucus following Mueller's appearance before the Judiciary and Intelligence panels. A lengthy, animated discussion about the impeachment process followed.

Sources said rank-and-file lawmakers asked about the technical aspects of an impeachment inquiry, including whether it would require a full vote of the House or could be initiated by the Judiciary Committee.

Nadler indicated that the committee could launch proceedings on its own. Articles filed by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) at the outset of this Congress have already been referred to the panel, giving Democrats a vehicle to begin the hugely controversial proceedings. The technical discussion also included a question about how an impeachment case is presented to the Senate.

In the course of the wide-ranging discussion, Nadler countered Pelosi's pushback by noting that polls showed limited support for removing President Richard Nixon from office when the House began impeachment hearings in 1973, but that public support for the effort grew as more evidence came out about Nixon's illegal behavior.

As she has for months, Pelosi argued to her colleagues that the "slow, methodical approach" employed by House Democrats was the right way to move forward, despite the fact that more than 90 of her members have called for an impeachment inquiry to begin now.

Rep. Lori Trahan of Massachusetts became the latest Democrat to endorse the idea on Wednesday, but some pro-impeachment members had hoped for far more lawmakers to join them.

Pelosi also noted Democrats have several lawsuits moving forward in federal court, including cases involving Trump's personal finances and tax returns, said the sources.

Pelosi has insisted Democrats need support from Republicans, or a shift in public sentiment, before even starting an impeachment inquiry against Trump.

A GOP-run Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office, at least for now, so Pelosi and other senior Democrats have argued that impeachment is an empty gesture that will only cause a backlash against vulnerable Democrats in 2020.

The meeting adjourned with Democrats agreeing on their next steps: filing a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena against former White House Counsel Don McGahn, who told Mueller that Trump tried to get him to fire the special counsel in order to end the investigation.

During a press conference afterward, Pelosi's opposition to impeachment appeared to soften, although she still won't endorse the idea.

"If we have a case for impeachment, that’s the place we will have to go. Why I’d like it to be a strong case is because it’s based on the facts — the facts and the law, that’s what matters," Pelosi told reporters while showing no signs of her disagreement with Nadler, who stood next to her.

“The stronger our case is, the worse the Senate will look for just letting the president off the hook.”

Pelosi added that Democrats' investigations are “not endless in terms of time.”

“If it comes to a point where the cone of silence and the obstruction of justice and the coverup in the White House prevents us from getting that information, that will not prevent us from going forward and in fact, it’s even more grounds to go forward," Pelosi said.

“Today was a watershed day in telling the facts to the American people. With those facts, we can proceed. And we face a time of great danger,” Nadler added. “This cannot go on. And it’s up to Congress to safeguard the Constitution and we will do it.”

While Mueller's performance was panned by Trump, GOP lawmakers and many media pundits, Democrats insisted it was too soon to say how it might affect the national debate on the president and impeachment.

“I think it’ll depend on how the public views what they saw today," said Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.). “Hopefully my colleagues see what I see. We’ve known for a long time that this president went above and beyond to obstruct this investigation. I think the Republicans know it, I think they’re playing defense for their guy.”

While Mueller was largely unwilling to go beyond what was in his March report, there were some surprising moments that Democrats seized upon to damage Trump.

Mueller repeatedly said Wednesday, as he did in his report, that Trump wasn't exonerated by his investigation, and firmly rejected the president’s “no collusion, no obstruction” claims. And Mueller said that Trump could theoretically be charged with a crime after he leaves office.

But there was also an embarrassing "correction" by Mueller that undermined his most damaging revelation from his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

Mueller initially stated in response to a question from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) that Trump couldn't be indicted because of a previous Justice Department opinion on the issue. Democrats and pundits quickly jumped on it.

However, a short time later, before the Intelligence Committee, Mueller clarified his comment.

"I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion,'" Mueller said. "That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

By midday, Democrats found themselves having to defend Mueller, a development they didn't expect heading into the day.

"He got off to a slow start, but anytime 20 million people are watching you on TV and you're in front of a congressional committee, you're gonna be a little nervous," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.)., who supports an impeachment inquiry.

“He doesn’t have his finger on every syllable of the report. So to think he would know everything is very unreasonable," asserted Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). "It’s hard, it’s hard. I think we need to wait and see after they’re finished with the second hearing with the Intelligence Committee. I think we’ll have a better idea of where we’ll be. But so far I’ve been extremely impressed.”

Some pro-impeachment Democrats, especially the hardcore group on the Judiciary Committee, argued that Mueller actually helped their cause.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said Mueller laid out "overwhelming, devastating evidence" of obstruction of justice by Trump, "even if he took on a far less aggressive role [as a prosecutor] than he could have."

"There was no new evidence today but it was new to about 95 percent of the American people," Raskin added. "All of that is in the report, and I think it's going to gain a whole bunch of new readers after that."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/pelosi-nadler-rebuff-impeachment-mueller-hearing-1432925

Very disappointed in Prime Minister Stefan Löfven for being unable to act. Sweden has let our African American Community down in the United States. I watched the tapes of A$AP Rocky, and he was being followed and harassed by troublemakers. Treat Americans fairly! #FreeRocky

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2019