Mr. Trump

mikelandjelo wrote:definisi majka

mikelandjelo wrote:


MAKE PUYO GREAT AGAIN

mikelandjelo wrote:

William Murderface wrote:

Zašto?

ako plutate ti i jos jedan lik na dasci i daska moze da izdrzi samo jednog imas pravo da ga ubijes kao da je samoodbrana.







ako sad dodje gag i kaze da je ovo samo popularna zabluda suspendujem forumsku karijeru odma...

Hal Draper in 1967 wrote:
What the classic case teaches is not that the Lesser Evil is the same as the Greater Evil–this is just as nonsensical as the liberals argue it to be but rather this: that you can’t fight the victory of the rightmost forces by sacrificing your own independent strength to support elements just the next step away from them.

This latter pattern is what has been going on in this country for the last two decades. Every time the liberal labor left has made noises about its dissatisfaction with what Washington was trickling through, all the Democrats had to do was bring out the bogy of the Republican right.

The lib-labs would then swoon, crying "The fascists are coming!" and vote for the Lesser Evil. In these last two decades, the Democrats have learned well that they have the lib-lab vote in their back pocket, and that therefore the forces to be appeased are those forces to the right. The lib-labs were kept happy enough if Hubert Humphrey showed up at a banquet to make his liberal speeches; or, before that, by the Kennedy myth which bemused them even while the first leader on this planet poised his finger over the nuclear-war button and said "Or else!" With the lib-lab votes in a pocket, politics in this country had to move steadily right-right-right-until even a Lyndon Johnson could look like a Lesser Evil. This is essentially why–even when there reall y is a Lesser Evil–making the Lesser Evil choice undercuts any possibility of really fighting the Right.

With almost infinite resources, the closest they’ve got to producing a popular candidate is Ted Cruz: a cross between a permanently disappointed sitcom vampire and the high school yearbook photo of every serial killer of the modern era.

Trump is in many ways just saying what the other candidates would say on cocaine, but he’s also a unity candidate. His hope is to bring all of America together in their rejection of reality.

Trump’s one liberal policy seems to be his desire to pump more funding into mental health – which I’ve taken the liberty of interpreting as a massive cry for help. You can actually make your own Trump policies by going through the incinerator at the Daily Mail and picking through the dust for anything they thought might get them prosecuted.

On the campaign trail, she’s a cynical power player projecting the weary joy of a shopping mall Santa while inside her burns the fury of Michael Corleone having to do a meet and greet at a farmers’ market in Idaho. She seems to shake hands with each member of the public as if musing on all the things she could do to them if only they were Libyan.

Clinton versus Trump will be like being on a bus being driven at high speed towards a cliff by a psychopath, where there’s a chance that a chimpanzee might grab control of the steering wheel. It’s not a question of whether this will make things better or worse, it’s more that the whole idea of “better” may be gradually ceasing to exist.

slovenac slavoj zizek o berniju sendersu wrote:Of course I sympathize with him. But I’m a pessimist here. Okay, he can play a positive role, blah, blah, blah. But I don’t see the beginning of something that will amount to a real, serious change. Maybe one has to begin with small things. For example, as I always emphasize also in my book, I still have some sympathy for Obama. I don’t buy that leftist stuff, you know, Obama betrayed the Left. What did they expect, that Obama will introduce communism into the United States, or what? But what I like about Obama, which for me is a good operation, you remember, universal healthcare. He touched a very important point of American ideology.

zvezda je zivot wrote:ovo je prilicno staro al vredi ponoviti

slovenac slavoj zizek o berniju sendersu wrote:Of course I sympathize with him. But I’m a pessimist here. Okay, he can play a positive role, blah, blah, blah. But I don’t see the beginning of something that will amount to a real, serious change. Maybe one has to begin with small things. For example, as I always emphasize also in my book, I still have some sympathy for Obama. I don’t buy that leftist stuff, you know, Obama betrayed the Left. What did they expect, that Obama will introduce communism into the United States, or what? But what I like about Obama, which for me is a good operation, you remember, universal healthcare. He touched a very important point of American ideology.

Jerry Kitić wrote:Jerry Kitich
6 Views

You are wrong Žižek does not so think about Bernie Sanders. Phooey. Rather Bernie Sanders must be to think about Žižek!

The poll shows Clinton leading Sanders 55 percent to 40 percent among likely Democratic voters. Clinton’s advantage is half what it was in a Baltimore Sun poll last month that showed her up roughly 30 percentage points.